BAMozzy

Shipping costs - that includes all the parts they ship in to manufacture the hardware, not just the cost to distribute all around the world have increased which also increases the cost of the Component parts and RAM, SSD storage etc has increased too, as has the raw materials like copper for the cooling system. Silicon and Chips are in high demand and I can't see that reducing, and then look at the cost of a PS5 and an all-digital PS5 Pro - no way would Sony sell a PS6 as cheap or cheaper than their Pro which would likely mean a PS6 will be around $1k at the lowest...

$80 is ridiculous - the game won't be that different from its predecessors, won't be innovative in its game-play loop and I doubt it will offer significantly 'more' to justify the cost - i fact it seems to offer 'less' with just a code in a box and no GTAO either.

The fact that they have likely chosen to spend so much more time ad money on just 'graphics', just the way the game 'looks' - which you should expect to have improved with better and more powerful hardware- shouldn't give them the right to charge more. Its like upgrading the packaging to look more impressive but the 'game-play' loop, story etc will feel like older games in a lot of ways. For $80, I can buy 4 or more AAA games now on sale that also offer a LOT of potential hours worth of entertainment and not paying the 'premium' just to play it at/near launch - each to their own of course, but no game is worth paying that much and most games will drop in price quickly too anyway...

I don't expect things to radically change in a year or two either so I don't think waiting for the prices to be lower will be effective - if anything, the costs will be higher due to inflation rather than lower.

The fact is that they still can't offer a PS5 (or Series X) at the cost they launched 6yrs ago so I doubt we will see prices that 'low' with next gen. How can they sell a PS6 cheaper than a PS5 currently costs, cheaper than an all digital PS5 Pro?

You'd have to expect a PS5 to be £300 ish with the Pro around £500 for a PS6 to be £700 but the costs of the older hardware has increased in general, not decreased as you'd expect over time....

I don't care, I won't be buying it and I don't think ANY game is worth spending more than £50 on - I can buy several older games for £50 or less and get 100's of hours worth of great gaming for that so why pay more just because its 'new', just to play Day 1 or within the first few months or so...

How many Consoles has Sony sold? What's their install base?

With 100m users, for example, 4.8m sales would be 4.8% of PS5 gamers bought and played and 95.2% didn't and with 500k sales, that's 0.5%. in other words, over 99.5% didn't buy games like Saros or Marathon.

It does make me ask why Exclusives are so 'important' when so 'few' seem to buy? Even the most popular games don't sell to 50% or more of their potential market and reaching just 5% of the playerbase is considered a big success, Profitable too. So why are Exclusives so important when the vast majority don't actually buy them, don't play them? I also wonder if they'd reach more and potentially be just as profitable if the prices were lower, reduce the cost by 50% and sell twice as many for the same revenue, same profits...

It amazes me how some will praise games for selling 1m copies which means less than 1% of the players on that Hardware actually bought it. If they phrased it a different way, as in over 99% of the player base has not bought, have not played, I think people would have very different opinions/comments.

Its not surprising when games are now taking 5yrs+ each to make - therefore we are lucky to see more than 1 'new' game per Developer per generation and also their flip-flopping between 'Live Service' and traditional Single Player games have sent mixed messages.

The PS3 era was so much stronger with 3 Uncharted and LoU from ND, SuckerPunch released a few Infamous Games, Guerilla had a few Killzone games and we had the resistance Trilogy and R&C games from Insomniac.

Back then, there was 4-5 'exclusive' games a year that I'd want to play and now it feels like maybe 1 or 2. The Quantity of Exclusive games releasing seems significantly lower - even if there are still LOTS of multi-platform games releasing to keep me playing. As far as I recall, the last 'new' game from Naughty Dog was the Last of Us pt 2 and with Uncharted 4 (and Lost Legacy Stand Alone expansion), that's the ONLY new content they've made since the PS3 era. U4 is over 10yrs old now and apart from porting old games forward, where are the games - Uncharted 1-3 released 2 yrs apart.

If it wasn't for Insomniac who seem to be able to deliver Games for PS5 Spider-Man Miles Morales, R&C, Spider-Man 2 and Wolverine (soon), it seems that Sony devs are making 1 game 'per generation' these days which I don't think is good enough when Generations are lasting over 7yrs+

I do think that not EVERY game should remain preserved and/or playable in 'full' and at the expense of the developer/publisher too. I know how annoying it maybe that the 1 or 2 games you actually enjoy playing have their servers turned off or the Publisher/Developer choose to move on to their 'new' projects games, but don't care about the numerous annual releases - like Fifa for example.

I don't think some games should be kept playable and I don't think its feasible either to expect servers and anti-cheat software to be kept running and up to date at cost to the publisher long after the vast majority of the playerbase have moved on and it now not 'worth' the cost and upkeep for the lack of money coming in.

Free to Play games to arguably don't have an 'obligation' to stay - you 'chose' to waste money on Cosmetics for example but you never 'bought' the game.

You pay money for a Licence, not the 'Game' as such so I do think that you have ample opportunity to get your 'moneys worth' - like buying a Season ticket to the Cinema or your favourite sports team. Some games you may well be able to play indefinitely and literally for your entire lifetime - if you look after your stuff well. Those N64 Carts only work on N64 so you need a working N64 and working controller to keep playing the 'cartridge' you bought - but if the Cartridge or Hardware stops working, you can't buy a 'new' replacement.

I don't think you can have a rule that ALL games must be kept playable/preserved and each should be treated as individual. I do think though that Publishers can't shut down games without a suitable notice period and be liable for refunds if they don't support their product for suitable period. In other words, they can't sell a game and shut it down within a year (even with notice) without having to issue refunds for example - they must be playable for a 'reasonable' length of time - but not necessarily indefinitely although some likely will be - Single Player, no 'online' games for example...

The more casual crowd isn't spending that much on a Pro when they are more likely to buy a used PS5 that plays all the same games for a fraction of the cost. Buy the PS5 from the dedicated who decided to upgrade instead and buy whatever games are on sale now after nearly 6yrs on the market...

To me it seems they are trying to convince the more dedicated that the Pro has some advantage over the PS5, convince you that even if its 'small' details that you'd probably not notice or care about, they still matter enough to spend that much.

With games taking longer and longer to make, its not surprising the 1st party games are reducing in number. Naughty Dog isn't releasing 4+ games over a generation anymore and Suckerpunch, Guerilla etc are taking over 5yrs between releases, its no wonder you only get maybe 1 or 2 1st Party games a year.

Anything that locks Content and features behind a Sub pay wall and if you stop paying, will lose access to Content you've bought, you've paid £70+ to play so 'forced' to keep paying is terrible value and anti-consumer. Its a 'blackmail' charge in my opinion - pay or lose access to content and features that you bought the Hardware for, lose access to your games you paid for to play on that hardware.

@UltimateOtaku91 But they can still be 'exclusive' on a PC - Sold only on their Store (not Steam or Epic), require Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Direct X, and lets not forget that Bethesda and Battlenet are MS owned platforms on PC too.

PC is a 'multi-platform' device where a Console is locked to a Single Platform ONLY - Games though can be exclusive to Microsoft and require a Microsoft account (Xbox or PC uses the SAME Digital Microsoft Account). Some PC games have been 'exclusive' to Steam or Epic fir example so they can still be 'exclusive to Microsoft even if you can play them on Hardware with a Microsoft OS and/or sign in to your MS account to 'stream' games to whatever hardware.

They could sell Fallout, Elder Scrolls etc on Bethesda net and their own store ONLY on PC - that would still make it 'exclusive' to Microsoft Platforms!!! The only difference is that MS didn't make or spec the Hardware - but you still require a Microsoft OS and Microsoft account to play...

Personally I think both PS+ Essential and Game Pass Core are extremely bad value and basically a 'blackmail' Sub service to get the FULL content/features of your Hardware and play the games you've bought. Games like Battlefield, CoD etc aren't $/£70 on Console, they are $70+ a Sub fee paid to the Console Manufacturer and stop paying the Sub fee, you lose access to the games you paid money to play on that Hardware.

A sub fee shouldn't be required to play the games you've already bought, already paid money to play. Consoles aren't 'cheap' these days as it is. If you want access to full range of Content available on a Console, you have to pay an additional $100+ a year - which adds up over the years making the Cost significantly higher and as I said above, stop paying and you don't just lose access to the games they gave you, but you lose access to a large part of your Library, maybe all games you paid money to play.

I think its crazy that after paying $70 to Play a game, I have to pay an additional $10 a month to be able to play it on the Hardware I bought it for. Its blocking games/content/features that you bought your Hardware for behind a Paywall, things that you get as standard on PC and don't require a Sub to unlock.

The Game Library tiers (Premium, Ultimate etc) that add a library of games you can download and play anytime you remain Subscribed is a different matter, but the 'Core/Essential' tier that are basically required or you can't access the games you've bought, can't use all the features/content the Hardware comes with etc is ridiculous in 2026.

Its possible it will be beaten - but that's irrelevant to me. If you don't enjoy GTA for example, will it matter if it beats Forza or if you don't like Racers, does it matter how well reviewed Forza is.

I do think it will likely be the highest rated Racing game and likely will win the Best Racing Game of the Year. I think what matters more is whether or not they have delivered on the promise, delivered on the game-play, the 'quality' (graphics and frame rate) and one of, if not the best in genre. If you want a Racing game Forza maybe the 'best' you can buy, but if you are looking for a Story or prefer an Action Adventure game, it doesn't really matter if Forza does end up being the 'highest rated' game of the year.

@twitchtvpat Yes it does - it has a far bigger Library of games given so much more choice and doesn't lock games/features behind a Paywall. The ONLY thing a PS5 Pro beats a PC on is 'resolution' and Resolution doesn't make a game 'superior' or somehow more 'playable'. With DLSS you can get a high quality '4k' image and have the option to customise to whatever is most important - like Frame Rate for example.

Graphics aren't the MOST important metric - certainly not to me so a does massively beat a PS5 Pro on simply Gaming Library alone. If you want to spend money to be locked to Sony's network ONLY, letting Sony dictate what games you can play or censoring what you can see, want a much more limited choice of Games and options within those games and happy to keep paying Sony every month or risk losing access to games you've bought and only interested in Graphical resolution, then maybe a PS5 Pro is 'better', but something that plays ALL the multi-platform games - often at much higher frame rate because you have the option to decide what's more important between Graphical resolution or better performance, the option to upgrade and 100's more games releasing 'exclusively' on PC to me sounds superior than a locked box with limited software and a Paywall to keep playing games.

If you want to play Battlefield, Call of Duty or whatever Online game with friends inc GTA Online, on PC, that just costs the price of the game - no other fees, but on Console, you can't play those $70 games unless you also pay a Sub fee - which is also another major reason the PS5 Pro is 'inferior'...

And a 1k PC maybe 'closer' to a standard PS5 - in some ways, but DLSS actually pushes it up past a PS5 Pro in some ways too - its far more mature now and also far better than PSSR - 'base' resolution maybe 'similar' to PS5 but with DLSS, you can get PS5 Pro image quality (if not better) and better RT, better Frame Rates etc. And like I said, a PC as a FAR bigger Game Library where as a PS5 Pro (and PS5) are very much more limited and a PS5 Pro doesn't play any different games to a PS5 and often, not any differently either!!!

And I already have 'several' gaming PC's - ranging from a handheld (that still plays MORE games than ANY console) to a Gaming PC with currently a RTX4080 that blows a PS5 Pro away on Frame Rates and Graphically at least on a par if not superior - and Games, with far more choice and competition often cost less too - but I appreciate sales can balance things a bit....

Size of market may well of increased significantly, but so has the choice of games and exclusives available to play on a PS5, the range of games to showcase what the Hardware can do and offer.

Returnal wasn't a 'major' seller either in its first 2wks and more of a niche market appeal than mass market. I'm sure some may have purchased just to show off their new PS5 too

@twitchtvpat And I have to disagree there as DLSS is far superior and more mature than PSSR and produces a superb image quality. Arguably it might not be quite the same 'base' resolution at that cost, but still produces a superb 4k image and probably at higher frame frates too.

A PS5 Pro + 6 or 7yrs of PS+ Essential is well over !k. A 1k PC plays ALL the multi-platform releases on a PS5 and 1000's of games that PS5 doesn't even have. It also plays a LOT of old Playstation games (and Sega, Nintendo, MS etc) through Emulation and doesn't look some games behind a Subscription wall. OK it might not hit the same resolution, but it can beat a PS5 Pro on Frame rate, on graphical quality (albeit at say 1080p instead of 1700-1800p) on customising to suit my preference.

A PS5 Pro also only gets a few games every year that are ONLY on Playstation and of those, I probably only want to play the odd 1 or 2 at most. So you are paying over 1k essentially for just a few games but forced to pay a Sub fee or have an extremely limited choice of content/features available. Spend that money on PC instead (or invest more if you normally buy more than 1 console) and you have access to the largest Gsming Library with decades of games available across multiple storefronts and options. With ALL of Xbox games on PC, its only a few PS and Nintendo games ethat aren't released on PC, but PC has 100's of others released every year not on PS5 or Switch...

Consoles are just Plastic Boxes designed to make gaming affordable for the masses, designed for that 'ease of use' that fixed hardware spec provides and it annoys me that some games are 'exclusive' to force me to buy multiple Plastic Boxes for those 'few' games.

What annoys me even more than that though is all these Multi-platform games that I've bought, I cannot play unless I keep paying the Plastic Box manufacturer a Subscription fee. Some Content is locked behind a Paywall. It doesn't matter if you paid $70 for Battlefield, you can't play it with your friends unless you pay a Sub fee.

As Consoles are now as expensive as a PC - especially if you also factor in the cost of PS+ over 5+ years as well as the Hardware - I doubt I'll bother buying another Plastic box that requires a Subscription to unlock the full range of Content and Features, to unlock the ability to play the games I've purchased on that Plastic box. I'll rather miss out on a handful of games and have access to 1000's of alternatives and NO Sub fee on a PC instead!

@trev666 PSN and PS3 store are two very different things.

If the PS3 store is closed, that won't affect your ability to play Digitally purchased games - it just means that you'll be unable to buy PS3 games digitally. The Licence is stored on your Digital profile so you only have to log into your account to play.

PSN being switched off would render a LOT of games useless as they require Online to function. It doesnt matter if you own the disc, can put it in your machine to verify your ownership of that licence, it still requires an online connection to function and PSN is that Online function. its where your account, your library etc is

IF PS3 store is switched off, it just means that you will no longer be able to buy PS3 games - it depends on how Sony handle it as you could still download games you've purchased or maybe will need to download the games prior to the store closing. But your digital Licence is still on your account.

Closing a store doesn't necessarily mean you can't redownload something you've already purchased, it dsoes mean that you can't purchase games anymore for that hardware. I doubt Sony would turn off PSN rendering your Digital Licences, your Profile and all Online functionality across ALL Hardware completely useless regardless of how you choose to buy games. A LOT of your Discs would literally be useless too - just a coaster as they rely on PSN to function.

All but a handful of games would literally be useless without PSN as you couldn't reinstall them without being connected to PSN and many of them have Online content requiring PSN to play. Even today, you can't fully play some games from the PS4 era as Sony basically killed them whether you bought on disc or not and what maybe 'playable' is a fractiion of the entire package you purchased...

Physical isn't the same as it was in the PS3 (and previous) generations - games would actually run from Physical media so you could buy, put disc in and be playing within a minute.

Now the Disc is nothing but a Delivery system. Whether they supply ALL the Game on it or not, the game does NOT run from the Disc as the Disc is far too slow to transfer the Data. Even if they supply the Whole game and that game doesn't require any patches or fixes, you still have to wait hours for it to be installed onto your SSD before you can play. The only reason you need to keep putting the disc in the drive after that is to prove you have the Licence Key to 'unlock' access to the Game stored on your SSD.

Your Digital Library may well be preserved better, especially if they drop Discs altogether. Discs don't have the required capacity for modern games and as I said, don't have the required speed to actually run games either. Its literally just a 'delivery' system and your Key that you have to put in the machine to unlock the game. Digital games have a digital key on your Digital Profile so you could sign into your Digital Account on ANY compatible Hardware and have access to your Digital Library. In otherwords, all your PS4 and PS5 Digital games will be waiting for you to download on a PS6 or PS7 - but you may NOT be able to download them from Disc if they decide to drop Disc Drives. After all, Discs are just Plastic Waste and with rising costs, more expensive to make and ship just to sell you a 'key' to unlock the game stored on your Hardware everytime you want to play.

I love Collecting 'Physical', but unlike Music or Movies, they don't play from the Physical Media. You don't put a CD or Bluray into a player and have to wait for an hour or so for it to install before you can actually listen or watch, only have to put the disc in to 'prove' you still own the key to 'unlock' access.

Uncharted 4 felt like a departure from the first 3 to me - it had the Characters, some of the humour, but the vibe was lacking and added an 'important' character from out of nowhere, not mentioned or alluded to in previous games just for the narrative.

The first 3 were very much an Indiana Jones style story with mystical elements and the 4th was more 'Goonies',much more grounded (no Mystical elements) and looking for Pirate treasure.

4's Game-play, like the Lost Legacy, was more wide Linear but I also think that was more down to the capability of the Hardware and being less limited than the PS3 Architecture. That helped the Game-play and of course Graphically, both 4 and Lost Legacy were stunning.

For me, Uncharted 2 though was the Peak of the Franchise, the Story, the setting, the mystical elements, the set-pieces etc. It is still my Favourite today. I just think that 4 lost something when they went for a more 'grounded' story, dropping the mystical elements and bringing in a Character from out of nowhere just for the Narrative and it left me feeling very 'flat' after finishing it, left me disappointed with Narrative direction even if the Game-Play was arguably the best in the series.

I see AI as a TOOL - nothing more, nothing less. I don't care if they choose to use AI and/or in what capacity they choose to use it, I just care about the final product, the game.

AI will still require a Human to instruct it, a human to asses and decide to use whatever AI produces, whether the results are 'good enough' to be used in their game. If 'bad' AI gets into a game, its because a Human allowed it, a Human is at fault - not the AI.

I won't buy 'slop' - whether that's Human or AI made. AI slop in a game is due to sloppy Humans. Humans are involved and they have the Control, they control the tool (AI) and decide if the results are good enough to use so its Humans at fault if their game is 'sloppy' regardless.

I don't see it as being different from Manufacturing replacing a lot of the 'Human' workforce with CNC and/or Robots to produce products to sell. I wouldn't refuse to buy a car because its now built primarily by Robots and not Humans, don't care that machines, computers, robots etc replaced humans in every industry. Humans created the tools and wouldn't use them if they weren't the 'better' option, didn't do the job faster and/or more efficiently cutting down time and/or workforce to produce something of equal or better standard

Worst is difficult to say as there are some acquisitions that never even got to release a game, a product under Sony before they were shut down. I don't know if Sony actually made any money back.

With Bungie, they would have made something back - the sales of Destiny and its Expansions and MTX's would have recuperated some of that money they spent. Marathon too would still bring in some revenue too and I expect Sony now owns both Destiny and Marathon IP's, Publishing rights too.

Bungiee wasn't 'just' a Studio (like Insomniac were when they were acquired), they were a Publisher with Publishing Rights and owned IP's too which have 'value'. That's why Bungie cost a LOT more and why Bethesda and ABK Cost MS even more because as soon as they are acquired, all those Published games start making money for the new owner. Every sale of those old published goes to the new owner.

When you buy 'just' a Studio, you may not get any IP's (assets) and certainly no Publishing rights so their 'old' games don't make the 'new' owners any money at all - that goes to the Publisher of those games. They have to invest into that studio, wait for a 'product' to sell before they can start recuperating the cost so I don't know if Bungie actually was the 'worst' purchase and even if the closed Bungie, I don't think it would be the biggest 'loss' either - Sony have closed studios responsible for some amazing games in their history...

@naruball Exactly - it may sell well in its genre but not sell well compared to games with more mass market and/or available on more platforms to reach its audience. It will sell better than if it wasn't highly rated and/or a broken mess at launch if its a good game, but just being a good game doesn't mean it will appeal to everyone, that all gamers will buy something they don't enjoy playing.

@naruball If you make a good game, it will likely sell well relative to its market and genre, but that doesn't mean it will outsell an average game in a far more popular genre and much larger market.

If you choose to limit your game to a 'smaller' player base, thus reducing the reach and potential sales, make a game that only appeals to a very niche audience it won't sell the same figures as an average game released on ALL platforms in a genre with far more mass market appeal but could still be a big seller compared to others in that 'niche' and limited audience.

Its going to sell 'more' than a broken mess of a game in that genre would but just being a 'Great' game doesn't mean it will have Mass appeal. It just means that it could sell far more to that 'niche' audience than a broken mess of a game would sell in that same genre and same limited market. It doesn't matter how good a game is, if the genre is something that doesn't appeal to the majority, isn't that popular at all, its market is very small but those that do play are more likely to buy if it is a great game than if its a poor example...

To me, NO game is worthg $70, let alone paying more. I don't care how much money they spent, how long they took making it etc, I care about the 'VALUE' to me. I don't care if they spent 5yrs on the Graphics, making it look ultra-realistic, the Game-play loop and Story are unlikely to be ground-breaking, a massive evolution or jump up on what games have offered for years.

The reason that games seem to be taken longer and longer is purely graphics - the increase in resolution, increase in detail, increase in polygons and object counts etc - but game-play hasn't really evolved. At best, you now get more games at 60fps, but the Game-play mechanics, game-play loops etc haven't really evolved. GTA 6 will likely have GTA mechanics first introduced in GTA 3 and refined over 4 and 5, follow a very similar Game-play loop but just look more modern, more 'impressive' graphically.

I can buy 'massive' games offering hundreds of hours of hours of game-play for a LOT less than $70 - especially if I wait a few months or so for sales. I don't need to play ANY game Day 1 and refuse to pay $70 for ANY game. I can play my Backlog, play Free games (F2P or Free in a Sub Service - even required Sub services like PS+ Essential offer 'free' games) or buy games on sale, games now less than $/£20 that are patched/complete.

@PerpetualBoredom to Quote you

simply a false statement. If you'd research a bit you could look up yourself how many games are playable directly from disc. Check DoesItPlay for example

Your response to my initial post and that you WRONG - TOTALLY INCORRECT!!! You criticised my post with INCORRECT information as NO games are playable directly from the disc as you state. All doesitplay indicates is whether or not you'd need to go online to 'download' any content or can get by with downloading from the Disc - but you still cannot play DIRECTLY from the disc as you stated and as I corectly point out, NO game plays from Disc, its just a Delivery system because the data speed is too slow to play games from disc it MUST be downloaded and installed to your SSD.

You are the one who literally posts lies, tells me to 'research' yet everything I posted was LITERALLY the Truth, FACT!! You are the one who needs to research, you are the one who needs educating, you are the one who should be apologising for the inaccurate and pointless response to Factual information. If you had done any research, you'd not have felt the need to reply and show your ignorance of the situation...

@PerpetualBoredom Yes and MY point is still valid too - that you ONLY need the internet initially to install the game and then NEVER need the internet again. Once installed, it can be played INDEFINITELY regardless - as long as the Disc remains in your posession and in good working order and your Hardware remains fully operational.

Preservation relies on YOU looking after both Hardware and Disc and if you buy on Disc, that may also limit your ability to play on 'new' hardware in the future as new Consoles may not have Disc Drives but those that bought Digital can access and download their Digital Library and play their games with 'enhancements' offered by 'newer' hardware.

The ONLY benefit to a Disc these days is that you can 'sell' your Licence to play the Game, recuperate some of the costs - regardless of whether the game is fully supplied on that disc or not. Maybe in 30yrs+ you can 'install' the game on your PS5 after the Console has been shut off from Internet access but if you 'install' it (or didn't delete it) before the Console gets shut off from internet access, you can still play it regardless anyway...

The point still stands that NO game runs from Disc and the Disc is just a Coaster with a Licence, a method of 'delivery', just like the Internet is and may infact be 'limiting' your Preservation as you may not be able to play on future Hardware because Disc Drives are 'obsolete', just a 'delivery' method and/or Licence holder, just Plastic waste.

I have NO idea what you meant because your point is NOT valid. NO GAME RUNS FROM DISC - and that's because the Disc Drive is far too slow, doesn't have the required Read and Transfer Speeds required for Games to actually run and just because you can 'install' a game in 30yrs time from a Disc that went out of print decades before (although may still be around Digitally online) on Hardware that also stopped being made decades before so not 'preserved' for others to buy and enjoy, doesn't change the fact that games don't run from Disc and require Downloading to your SSD regardless. The ONLY difference is where you Download from - Disc, Internet or BOTH. Digital Purchases may actually preserve your game Library better, allow you to download games on 'new' hardware via BC, on Hardware that doesn't have an antiquated Disc Drive Delivery method...

@PerpetualBoredom NONE are Playable from Disc whether they contain the entire game code supplied on it or NOT. They ALL require installation to the internal storage to run because the data transfer and read speeds from discs are NOT adequate for gaming and haven't been since the PS3 generation - the LAST Playstation Console that actually ran games from Disc.

Since the PS4 era, ALL games have required installation to the internal storage to run from there - especially now on the PS5 generation where games are built and designed to run from SSD's, to make use of the fast Data transfer speeds etc. The Disc has ONLY been required to prove you still own a valid licence to play the game installed on your SSD. Discs are too slow to play games directly from - hence the reason you MUST download and install to the SSD to play.

The Disc is basically JUST a delivery system to get the Software again, whether that is complete and requires NO internet Download as well or requires a partial/full internet download, to your Console - just like the internet is a DELIVERY system. Once installed, the ONLY reason you have to put the disc in to play the Software ON YOUR CONSOLE is to verify you still own the Licence to play. The Game is NOT running from the Disc, just like if you buy Online, the Game doesn't run from a Server. You have to 'install' from either Disc, Internet or BOTH before you can play!!!

Again 'ALL' games have to be downloaded and installed from somewhere - no game can be played 'directly' from the disc and so does it really matter if you have to 'download' something from the internet whilst downloading and installing from disc before you can play.

Its not as if you can put the disc in and load up, start playing immediately when you buy it- you have to install to your SSD initially to be able to play. A process that can take hours. Once installed, you don't NEED to be online as the content has been installed to your SSD. You only need the Disc to prove you have a Valid licence to access the game on your SSD - not the game files on the disc as they have also been 'downloaded' to your SSD.

Chances are in 30yrs time, you'd still have to download the game to your PS5 from the Disc to play it (if you deleted it from your SSD) - unlike PS1, PS2 or PS3 era discs, you cannot just put a PS4 or PS5 disc in and start playing, you have to 'install' it first. If you REALLY want to keep playing, want to 'Preserve' your game, don't delete it - your disc will have the Licence and the game is installed on your SSD so won't need to internet...

Not interested in buying a Game I can already play just because it has a fresh coat of paint applied.

As far as I am concerned, OLD games brought back are for those that missed out the first time and/or the most dedicated fan of that Game. I certainly won't pay money to play a game I can already play.

All plans are 'subject to change' as and when the Dynamic market itself changes and these Publishers react to that market.

We can ALL expect Hardware to be continued for the foreseeable future but that 'could' change if/when the market changes. It may well still be just about sustainable, just about financially viable to make and release Hardware and distribute that globally. However, it may not be that way for the 'next' gen. May not be cost effective to build 100m Hardware units, each with TB's of Storage, each with numerous RAM Chips, each with a CPU/GPU powerful enough to run those games 'adequately' and affordably for the Market, may not be financially viable to 'ship' those around the world with inccreasing fuel costs too etc.

It may make more sence to have their Own Digital Platform and sell their games through that, Stream games to whatever display you have etc - much like Music or Film is for the masses. Games could be Exclusive to their own Storefront so you have to buy from them, but could play on ANY screen...

Point is, Plans will change as Circumstances and Market dictates. Just because something may have been in place a few years ago, a decade ago or 30yrs ago, doesn't mean that those plans will remain forever...

@SMJ Well it does depend on whether you talk to an Xbox, Playstation or Nintendo Fanboy and they always accuse you of being a hater of their platform and fanboy of the rival dispite advocating for ALL games on ALL platforms so ALL gamers get the option to play ALL games without missing out or being forced to own 'multiple' Hardware devices that are so similar and often made by the same Company - MS and Sony both have Chips made by AMD and probably made in the same factory, same manufacturer for RAM and other components they just assemble in different factories.

Exclusives are not 'made' for the Gamer, they are made for the benefit of the Corporation to 'sell' more Hardware, to make 'more' profit from the Consumer, the gamer. Somehow, they've managed to indoctrinate fanboys into believing its for them and without these, there would be no 'reason' to buy their hardware (except it still plays games, still has the controller layout they like and ultimately would have a much larger library too as EVERY game, not just a curated handful that the Console maker decides you can play and can even force devs to censor games too...

I can't wait for the day I could play every game on a single device - PC is close but to play everything, you need to buy a box for a few exclusives...

@SMJ If Only - but some here are so in favour of the Corporate profiting off of the gamer in some sort of misguided way of justifying their allegiance and/or purchasing decision, can't see the benefit to 'gamers' to be able to play ANY game and would rather prevent some gamers from enjoying the same games they play, even if that means missing out on some games others enjoy.

I think that if Hardware is made and sold by those that also make and publish Software, that they should sell based on Price, Aesthetics, Controller layout, User Interface/Operating System etc, not because they release a few games a year exclusively to force you to buy their hardware. Its as if they are too scared to actually 'compete', beat their competitors with the actual Hardware. It would be like LG TV's only having Disney+ whilst Samsung only has Netflix and consumers would have to buy both TV's to have all the content instead of consumers choosing the TV they prefer the best.

I look forward to the day when you could buy a Gaming Device with a Sony Store, a Microsoft Store, A Nintendo Store and all the others so you can just buy and play the games you want to play on a Single device, use the controller (or K&M) you prefer and plug into any Display you want. The brand on the box is irrelevant, I just care about the games, the software. I don't care about the Publisher and their profits, I care about be able to play the games I want, where I want and preferably with the device and controller I want too...

At the end of the day, its up to the Publisher to decide which Platforms they wish to support and in the case of those with their own hardware to sell, whether their decision helps sell more hardware too.

Of course that may lead to 'flip-flopping' as the situations are NOT stable. It may well be better to keep their games 'exclusive' to try and sell hardware or maybe they need to sell on more platforms to generate more 'revenue' from Software.

In such a Dynamic business, you can't expect these companies to be 'static' as that could be detrimental. They may choose to keep their Software exclusive to sell Hardware, but then if that doesn't generate the revenue they 'expect/need', they may choose to release some of their software on other platforms to boost their revenue.

I'd prefer it if ALL Publishers - inc those with their own Platforms - released their Software on ALL platforms - even if they don't release Day/Date on their closest rivals platforms. Every 'game' should be available on every Platform capable of running the software in my opinion so the Publishers can maximise their sales potential and EVERY gamer gets the opportunity to play EVERY game on their preferred platform with their preferred UI and Controller. Gamers should not be forced to own multiple Hardware that are basically the 'same' with a different brand name on it just to play a few games that release every year not available elsewhere. No gamers should be 'excluded' from playing something because they didn't buy a certain branded box. So I think MS and Nintendo should release their games on PS and I think Sony should release theirs everywhere too but they are scared that gamers may not choose to play on their 'box' yet still 'sell' games, still get revenue...

MS may 'choose' to keep their games Exclusive to sell more 'boxes', just like Sony or Nintendo do. Sony seem to be flip-flopping on their multi-platform approach to don't forget so maybe its a bit of tit for tat going on with the next Xbox supposedly a PC too...

Just because its not topping 'Sales' charts doesn't mean that they aren't getting 'revenue'. A year of Game Pass, especially the 'top' tier required for Call of Duty costs more than buying the Game outright and I doubt anyone is paying £70 to play it for just 1 month or just the Campaign.

Call of Duty also makes money on Season Passes and Cosmetic Bundles - more people in the game, more chance of selling these. Game Pass doesn't give away the paid Season Passes or the Cosmetics free, doesn't give away CoD Points to buy Cosmetics.

No one would stop buying CoD just to play on Game Pass for a Year - that is by far the most expensive and least consumer friendly way to play the game all year, to play all the content - inc all the Zombies and MP maps. Yes Sales maybe down, but if you are 'renting' it all year, its a LOT more revenue. It only becomes more consumer friendly IF you intend to play other Game Pass releases too or only going to play it for the first month or two (but then I doubt you'd be buying it anyway and certainly wouldn't be playing the Seasonal content and buying Cosmetics)

Point is, CoD makes money from selling Season Passes and from Cosmetic bundles, not JUST Sales. Sales revenue may well be down, but renting on Game Pass for a year costs more than buying the game.

People see Sales chart numbers and assume that CoD must be 'hurt' by Game Pass when it could actually be 'better' off than had they relied solely on Sales as MANY of those on Game Pass may not have bought anyway - after-all, BO7 followed on from BO6 and had much stronger competition from BF6 and Arc Raiders. It may not have 'sold' well at all but Game Pass revenue as well as Game Pass players buying Season Passes and Cosmetics have boosted player numbers and revenue.

Its ridiculous that some still can't accept that 'Sales' aren't the ONLY revenue stream for games like Call of Duty these days and even worse that a 'Playstation' website perpetuates Console Wars with 'rumours', not even facts...

I don't know how many times this website has written an article about Game Pass, a Microsoft product not available on Playstation!!!!

@get2sammyb I was about to say something very similar. It certainly did trigger my Goldeneye and the Ltd Eition Golden N64 Controller. That was 'my' Controller and I wouldn't let my Kids use that one...

There Hradware business struggled to be competitive with the other big Asian manufacturers being cheaper and/or better specced as well as a lot of people moving to Digital - inc using their Mobile Phones for cameras, walkmans/MP3 players etc.

That really only leaves their entertainment content divisions to be the big money makers and their main revenue generators. They weren't even making their own Panels in their own TV's, relying on LG who could sell better spec TV's for less.

Why wouldn't gaming follow the SAME pattern as Music and Film?

Cloud Streaming for the Mainstream, the masses and hardware based for the enthusiast and wealthy. If you are an Audiophile or Movie buff, you probably have a hardware solution set up for the 'optimal' experience - whether that's a Home Cinema set-up or a Hifi separates system.

Hardware may well only be for the wealthy and/or enthusiast who can justify spending that much money on Hardware just to play a game at a certain Frame Rate, Resolution, Graphical setting and/or Latency but for the 'majority', Streaming may well let them play the SAME game for a LOT less money, play Anywhere and take their entire Games Library with them - much like many people can access their music or film Library anywhere.

I'm sure Hardware will exist for those that want and/or can afford it, but I do think that Streaming will become much more mainstream...

If you had actually been playing thev game, there are more 'outrageous' outfits and certainly non-military based. The blue one looks very much like the Fallout ones and there is a Snowman one which is 'non-human' and not counting the 'robot' characters (Tedd and EWR-3).

What this game doesn't have, or hasn't had are the Cel-shaded or Cartoon characters that everyone hated and drew the line at - the Beavis & Butthead or American Dad characters - at least all these skins, even if not military, are in keeping with the aesthetic graphical style.

There is even outfits that aren't too dissimilar from the casual style of the other outfit in this particular bundle. Whether you like this look or not, its not as if these would be the first to arrive that aren't specifically 'Mil-sim', the first to arrive that don't 'fit' that military battle - you can run around in a business suit (the Replacer bundle), as a Japanese Warrior with Straw Kasa Hat, as a chain-mail wearing Knight etc and as I alreadyy said, run around in a Fallout bright blue boiler suit too...

@UnlimitedSevens Owning the 'physical' media does not mean you own the 'contents' on it - but like you said, they aren't going to come to your house and take the disc away from you.

The fact that very 'select' content - as in just Single Player, completely offline modes, may well be playable indefinitely is more circumstantial. Its circumstantial if you are supplied ALL the content and be able to download it all from disc, its circumstantial if the devs/publishers release a 'complete and fully patched' version on Disc so that you as a Consumer have 'indefinite' access to their game. Of course with Single player, completely offline games - even if they only supply a small part of the Content on Disc, once downloaded and installed, as long as you keep the disc, keep your licence, you can keep playing.

I'm NOT denying you own the Disc, not denying you own the Licence stored on it, I'm just saying you DON'T own the Software as that remains the property of the Publisher as its ALWAYS been the case - even back with the Cartridge days. You never 'owned' the Game, you owned the Cartridge and licence to access the Software supplied with it.

The point is that Publishers/devs don't have to 'supply' all the code these days and so don't - they can distribute their Software via Physical, Digital or BOTH - you choose to buy a Physical licence because you own that Physical disc, that Physical Licence Key and can choose to sell it. Same as you've always been able to di with Physical.

You can own the disc to EVERY game but that doesn't mean you OWN all that software - you just own a LOT of Physical Keys you can trade in if you want. The Publisheerrs can Choose to distribute their software to you how they want, but you only bought a Physical Licence key embedded on Physical media and the Publishers chooses to distribute some, all or even none of their Software via Disc. In the past, they had to supply it all by Physical because Hardware was NOT connected to Internet to distribute their software...

It feels like Fallout in Space which can be a good or bad thing depending on what you wanted it to be. Its combat is more refined than Fallout 4 but the exploration and discovery is a whole lot worse due to the setting.

With Fallout, EVERY mission is within walking distance - even if its the other side of the map. Every mission can be completed with just wandering between objective points, maybe discovering other missions or completing other objectives as you make your way between way points. With Starfield, that's not always possible because the missions take you to different planets requiring you to jump back and forth between planets to complete them. That then becomes tedious, boring (for some)

Its a massive game in terms of scale/size, but that does impact the discovery, the exploration etc. Yes you can probably visit every planet, but its not like visiting every inch of a Fallout map where everything is within walking distance and not that far from an objective, a mission or something else to discover...

Its a typical Bethesda game to, nothing 'new' and the same types of missions, the same types of interactions, the same types of game-play loops. It looks, feels and plays like a Bethesda game from the PS3 era in a LOT of ways, hasn't really evolved to keep up with modern RPG's that have raised the bar. If you are a Fan of the Bethesda RPG, you'll probably get more out of this than others...

Over-priced and under-featured compared to the Competition. LG and Samsung TV's offered better spec for less which is why Sony TV's couldn't compete and now sold off to TCL.

Most Consumer Electronics are now obsolete - replaced by streaming and/or digital options. No one buys Hifi's, Walkmans, DVD/Bluray Players etc as music and movies have moved to digital streaming platforms. A display is all that's required these days and Sony's overpriced displays, which used Panels from other TV Manufacturers (like LG) couldn't compete, losing market share...

@UnlimitedSevens its the SAME as buying an Album, you don't OWN the music to do what you want with it. That still belongs to the Artist and its their 'work'.

It was taken to court and the result in California is that Games are sold as 'Licences'. Games are sold as licenses in California, and as of January 1, 2025, a new state law (AB 2426) requires digital storefronts to explicitly disclose this to consumers. Sellers must inform buyers that they are purchasing a revocable, limited-duration license to play, rather than owning the game outright.

That's Digital games, Content, Media etc - but the same basically applies to Physical although you do have the Physical disc and its more difficult to revoke that Licence and therefore could still give you access to some content after its been deleted/removed/revoked - assuming that it has NO Online requirements, modes etc. You are still buying a licence and don't 'own' the Software, that's still owned by the Publisher.

That's why, despite that software being installed on your Console, you cannot access it without the Disc, cannot copy that software or use it for anything other than playing. Physical, because its a more 'generic' licence lets you sell it, lend it to someone else to play for a while etc - things you can't do with Digital. It doesn't matter if you own the disc, certain content/modes can and are 'unplayable' if the devs, the owners decide - you can't play Killzone online anymore making half the content on Disc unusable regardless of whether you bought Physically. Try playing Destiny on Disc even if ALL the content was supplied on it. The games are still OWNED by the Publisher, hence they have the right to remaster and re-release games, the right to turn-off servers etc

I'm not saying anyway is right, just the way it is and the way it will likely go. You may have owned Cartridges or discs in the past where the game was fully included, even ran from the media, but you still only purchased a Licence to play on a specific Hardware, not the software/game you could play on any Hardware, not something you could download to access, tweak, modify or play without requiring the license. It just 'feels' different because it was all included and you can sell the Physical media as you 'Own' the Physical media but you never owned the 'Software', the code and the assets that make a game.

That's the ONLY real difference between Digital and Physical - the fact that you can sell the Physical and the Licence on it because you 'own' that, where as Digital you have NOTHING you can sell even if you OWN a Digital Licence. Like I said, you can sell your Destiny disc (if someone is willing to buy) because you OWN the Physical media, but the Game is unplayable, the contents are useless - inc the Licence, because the OWNER of the game decided to kill it.

@UnlimitedSevens I do think thatt if push comes to shove and they do involve a court of Law, the Publishers would be a LOT clearer in what they are actually selling and the Law itself would still likely come down on the side of the IP owners, protecting the artist and their art, their work.

At most, I think the best that may happen is that we as Consumers are better informed as to what we are purchasing and thatt maybe we can sell our 'licence' whether we buy Digital or Physical if we chose - just like we can sell our 'licence' with Physical and in doing so, we can no longer access the Game stored on our SSD without a 'valid' Licence.

I think if they were challenged, they would make it a LOT clearer that you are purchasing just a Licence - you certainly don't own their Software, their 'code', their Assets, their art - much like you don't own the Music on a CD and cannot copy it or use it for your OWN projects, can't broadcast or use it your own work. It doesn't matter if you own a CD or Bluray, that work is still protected by Law, still owned by the Creators/publishers.

I believe the Law would come down on the side of the Artists, the creators and owners of the IP and that Software, their 'Art' would be protected by Law so you cannot 'own' it just by buying a Disc or by buying it Digitally. A court of Law may well enforce the Publishers to add more clarity, be a lot clearer in what you as a Consumer are purchasing (you are Purchasing a Licence to play that game, a licence to access that Software on a specific device/Platform, not the 'code, artwork and assets' it contains, not the copywrited material and trademarks, not the work and creation of the Developers, the artists etc.

The TL:DR is that if Consumers took them to a Court of Law over it, the Law would Protect the Artist and their copywrited material, their Trademarks and IP's, their Art and Code, but they'd also enforce more Clarity for the Consumer so they are much more aware of exactly what it is they are Purchasing, that they are just buying and owning a License and perhaps ensist that Digital Licence purchases can be sold on like Physical.

@Oxy Again - completely missing the point - I am pointing out FACTS not OPINIONS, I'm NOT defending the situation but explaining it as you (and many others) can't seem to grasp the fact that you have to Download games to your Storage to play, that it makes no difference how they choose to distribute and its personal choice about which type of Licence you choose to buy.

It also doesn't make ANY difference as far as Game preservation is concerned - if you keep the game installed, then there is NO issue with re-installing in the DISTANT future and in fact, Digital purchases may well be preserved 'better' as the licence is stored on your Digital Profile which could allow you to download those games on newer hardware. For example, I have XB360 and PS4 Digital games that I can download and play on Current Gen Hardware - whether I bought the console with or without a Disc Drive. In the future, Disc Drives may be Obsolete so your entire Physical Library won't be brought forward but your Digital Library will.

Preservation is more about 'new' gamers still being able to buy and/or play old games. You can 'preserve' your own games by looking after the Hardware and Software - but if they 'break' you can't go and buy a new replacement because they aren't 'preserved'. Preservation exists far better on PC because the games are 'Digital' meaning new gamers can still purchase games that long went out of production, no longer being manufactured at all.

I am NOT against Physical - far from it. I buy all my Music, books and bought movies too (although don't buy Movies today). I have over 1000 CD's numerous Vinyl albums and Bookcases full of Books. But whinging about Games not being 'ALL' on disc and calling them 'Coasters' with a Licence is exactly what ALL Physical games are these days and have been since the PS4 gen. Its that ignorant belief that the Code on Disc 'matters' when 99% of games released have required Patches for 'optimal' playing - even IF you can play the code on the disc. Games aren't always 'complete' at launch either as Devs add content 'post-launch'. Not every game is a Cyberpunk 2077 on Disc - a game you really wouldn't want to play without internet connection, but ANY gamer would really want to play the best, the patched and optimal version and that will require ONLINE downloads.

Spreading mis-information and/or being critical of downloading when you still have to download from Disc anyway is somewhat ridiculous. Discs are 'obsolete' in essence as they don't have the data transfer speeds required for playing - hence you have to install to SSD to play. The ONLY reason you buy a Disc these days is because the Licence can be sold/traded. There maybe a 'few' that have no internet, have very slow or metered internet that will buy Discs but EVERYONE else buys Physical because that Licence can be sold/traded, they can recoup some of their money back if they want, its a safety net!

@Oxy And its got nothing to do with Physical 'enthusiasts' or 'denying' them anything, its that most Physical enthusiasts are ignorant and are whinging about things that make NO sense. If games ran from Physical, I'd understand it, but the fact is that you have to download the content ANYWAY, that the Content isn't running from the disc so apart from having to put the disc in to verify you still own the Licence, that you haven't sold (lost or damaged) the disc, the content on it is NOT important - its just 'delivered' to your Console.

Once installed, regardless of whether you've installed ALL of it from that disc, even able to do that 'offline' or not, that Disc is JUST a Coaster with the Licence on it, just like a game supplied with half the content or less. That's why your argument is pointless, is redundant, is as obsolete as your Disc is.

Gone are the days when you could buy a Physical game, put it in the console and start playing - you have to Download regardless so it really doesn't matter where you are downloading the content from - disc, internet or both. What is important is the Licence and that ALL the Content is delivered to your Hardware by whatever method so you can play - that is what you paid for, that is what you get.

Even with games, like Starfield, where some content may well be delivered by Internet, you are still getting ALL content delivered to you and a Licence that you prefer, a licence you can choose to sell on if you wish. I'm still an advocate for Physical that consumers can choose to sell on - but I'm not going to defend Physical purchasers misconceptions over Physical media and/or their idiotic claims that make NO sense. Even with ALL the content, the game isn't running from disc (as you yoursself know), so the disc itself them is just a Coaster with a licence on it - like those with some or none of the content supplied on disc!!

@Oxy I'm not denying they are 'distribution' methods of those media, I'm also saying that they where that media is accessed by the player or you the reader. With Games, the Physical media is NOT where the Content is accessed, where the content plays from.

What I am saying is that with games, the Physical medsia is JUST the distribution method, that your Console cannot and does not access that content from the physical media you purchased - Completely different from Blurays, Vinyl, CD's, DVD's, Tapes or any other of these Physical media - there is a difference between the content running on the Physical media you've purchased and the Physical media just a delivery method, a licence key as the content itself will NOT run, play or be of ANY use at all until you install it to a device that can play the content.

Your Console 'runs' the game from its internal storage - how you get it to your Storage doesn't matter at all - its just your 'preferred' distribution method, your preferred type of Licence (one you can sell on, one you can't). The content on the disc is basically obsolete, redundant, useless, a 'coaster with a Licence' once you've installed the Content to your SSD - whether its ALL on that disc or NOT.

Physical media may ONCE of supplied and ran from the Physical Media, but that hasn't been the case now for over a decade with PS4, PS5, XB1 and Series Xbox Consoles - PC's too haven't run games from Physical Media for decades either. The MAIN purpose of Physical Media for over a decade now has been to supply you with a Valid Licence to access Software installed on your internal Storage - whether it also distributed that software or not!!

The difference with CD's/Vinyl or Bluray/DVD's is that player 'reads' that content from the Physical media and doesn't require you to download it to the device to make it 'playable'. The device, you in the case of books, is able to read the content directly from the Physical media without issue but Games cannot be read by the device so the content has to be 'downloaded and installed' therefore games are very different to Music, Movies or books - but then they are much more interactive and much more data needs to be transfered.

The fact is that your disc is still just a Coaster with a Licence regardless of whether they supply the entire game content or you have to download everything from the internet anyway. The game stored on disc is NOT being used, not accessed when playing. Whether all the content is supplied or not, you still have to download it so it doesn't matter how you get the content on to your device to play it...

@Oxy And the difference between a book, an Album or a movie is that you don't need to download patches or even download those onto a media player before you can actually use them, that the 'book, Bluray or Vinyl' aren't just the licence holder and distribution method of that content.

Games haven't 'played' from Physical media since the PS3 generation. No Disc Drive can play those games, they have to be 'downloaded' to your SSD regardless of what format you choose to buy, You aren't buyiing the Content to play on that Physical media.

Its more like you buying an Book, Movie or Album and then having to install that to a device that can acually let you access it and then if you bought Physically, having to put that into your device just to unlock the content now downloaded to it. It doesn't matter where you 'download' the content, whether Physical, internet or a combination of both, you still have to download and install.

The ONLY difference is that with Physical, you can sell your Licence - even though the entire game, DLC etc maybe installed on your Device, you can't access it without the Disc. With Digital, your licence is locked to your Profile so can't be sold. The 'only' advantage is that when your device is disconnected from the internet or you have a limited amount of downloads per month, being able to download from a Disc may well be the best or only option.

Not all Games fit on Disc and as the disc is JUST a distribution option and the MAIN purpose is to provide a Licence Key, it doesn't really matter if you have download 'some' content from the Internet - its all handled at the point of installation, handled alongside the Downloading from Disc.

Its NOT the same as Books, Movies or Music because you actually use those Physical media as the Content. With games, the disc is only the Licence holder as the content has to be on your Device and where you download that content from doesn't matter, doesn't make ANY difference at all!!