BAMozzy

@orvisbean101 You have to remember that MS approached ABK to buy them years before they actually did acquire them and then had to 'fight' for the right to acquire them and agree to numerous deals to appease just a few different 'Glodal' authoroities. They were 'expected' to take over a few months earlier as well but the case dragged on.

When the agreed on the takeover, the Games industry was still in a 'boom' after the Pandemic in 2021 and before the world went into a massive global Crisis - partly brought on by the events in Ukraine from Feb 2022 and the resulting Sanctions raising Oil/Fuel prices which in turn raised general living expenses.

Arguably no-one would have predicted that 'War' would occur and thatwould have such an impact - Part of those sanctions also affecting the Games industry as they pulled out and ceased trading - losing a massive chunk of revenue from that region as well as seeing a drop in sales as people tightened their spending on leisure activities.

That led to massive restructuring across the whole industry - every major publisher now 'struggling', deciding to close studios, cancel games because they 'project' that they will run out of money before those games get made and/or won't sell enough to recoup their costs. Its not 'just' MS that cut their Staff and cancelled games - Sony has, Ubisoft has, EA has, Square Enix has, WB has etc etc etc..

I know that Politics shouldn't be discussed and many of us use Gaming to escape the 'real' world, don't want to consider what is happening outside of the gaming 'bubble', but the reality is that is having a MASSIVE impact on the industry - people are choosing not to buy 'new' releases - certainly not in the quantity they were - opting to wait for sales whilst playing games like Roblox and Fortnite. They may still buy the odd 1 or 2 'new' games, but being far more selective and picky. Instead buying both BF6 and CoD, deciding which one they will buy until the other is on Sale (if they buy at all) for example or waiting for reviews and if it doesnt score a '9/10', deciding to wait for a sale instead for example.

The costs have risen - its not just 'developer' overheads (wages, electricity, rent etc) that's gone up, but also the costs of manufacturing and distributing their Products 'globally' - the fuel cost to send their Discs around the world, but the sales aren't going up to cover those rises.

The last couple of years have been very rough for the industry so we have seen many publishers do whatever they can - MS has increased the number of games it now releases 'everywhere' to try and maximise its revenue. I doubt Fable would have been a 'Day 1' release on PS but after nearly a 'decade' of development costs to try and recover, they need that sales revenue - Forza 6 hasn't been that long so a few months of exclusivity can be afforded and 5 may have bought them 'time' too...

Got to make their money back after so long in development - so sell it EVERYWHERE day/date as PC/Xbox customers may well Subscribe to Game Pass to get to play it cheaper.

Glad to see its looking very faithful to the OG Fable Trilogy despite a new Development team - I had concerns they would lose 'something' with a new Developer (Halo and Gears did) but it seems they really do understand what made Fable the games they were, inc the world, the humour, the game-play loop etc...

Anthem's initial reveal and the way they described the project left me excited and interested - I think it had a LOT of potential and even when it released, there were certain aspects that came close to realising that potential.

However I do think it was perhaps too ambitious and/or needed a LOT more time and resources to reach the full potential. The Story, Hub and looting system were so weak that it was obvious the game was never going to reach its full potential without massive investment and a lot of time - something I could never see EA giving Bioware. Therefore it was destined to be shut down rather than become the game we anticipated, reach that potential it promised!

And these games are still a result of Koticks management and organisation of the Studios.

Black Ops 6 and 7, just like MW2 and MW3, were in development and 'planned' before Microsoft officially took over and basically took over 'funding' the development to see them through to completion. These are still a 'legacy' of the schedule and demands Kotick and his management of ABK set out and established - in case the deal fell through.

MS didn't come in and greenlight the development of these games, haven't 'interfered' or 'changed' how the Franchise and its annual cycle has been run etc. If you didn't know that its now under Micosoft, you'd not notice any difference - certainly doesn't feel or seem like its 'under new management' or that anything has changed. It was very apparent to me Naughty Dog and 'Uncharted' was under 'new' management after Amy Hennig left - 4 has a very different vibe to it...

A lot of potential - but never realised and the initial release felt so 'empty/hollow', a LONG way from realising its potential, it probably needed another '5yrs' or so to sort its Narrative out, to actual have the polish and game-play loop, inc loot and looting, the hub etc all functional and engaging so it actually pulled players in and kept them playing - instead, it pushed them away and they never returned...

@dskatter Well they are seemingly getting out of the 'Console' business and returning back to their PC platform - but whether they get out of the Hardware business completely, I don't think that will happen 'soon'

25yrs ago, MS were only making games for their Windows platform on PC but Gaming PC's were not affordable to the Mainstream so MS had to enter the Console space to sell their games to a mainstream audience, to make DirectX an integral part of Gaming (hence X-Box as it is DirectX in a Box).

Now, 25yrs later, you can play modern PC games on a Handheld 'Switch' or PC at 'Console' like settings/performance and of course Hardware Price. PC's are much more 'mainstream' and Direct X is well established. Therefore, the reason the Xbox existed in the first place is no longer relevant and in fact for the past 'decade' (yes decade as MS decided to merge their 'Console and PC' platforms and rebrand their Gaming division as 'Xbox' to include PC & Cloud as well), their Console has been 'optional' - one of a variety of choices to play/access Xbox first Party games/services inc Game Pass. If you own a PC, you don't need to buy an Xbox anymore or miss out on Halo, Gears, Forza etc.

Therefore, I think MS are more likely to return to their PC roots, get out of the 'Console' Hardware business, but may well offer their own 'PC' Hardware - like they do with their Surface PC range despite Asus, Lenovo, MSi etc also making similar hardware. They'll still have their OWN platforms on PC/Cloud so it won't be like Sega giving up on Dreamcast to become a 3rd Party Publisher only...

Slop is Slop regardless of how it is created - whether its by Human or AI. There has been many examples of 'Human' created Slop over the years and I expect that we will see more AI created slop in the future.

If you want Humans to cease calling Generative AI slop 'Slop', then stop using Generative AI slop in Content. After all, a Human had to command the AI to produce that content/slop and a Human that decided that content/slop was 'good enough' to use in their Product - so maybe 'train' those Humans to not accept AI slop, to 'amend/corrrect' the AI Slop to be 'usable' or better still, use it to inspire a perfect piece.

The ONLY reason people will call it 'Slop' is because the final product reaching them is 'Slop' - regardless of who made it, but obviously its 'AI' created Slop because Humans wouldn't make those sloppy mistakes - the Human Mistake is accepting and using that 'slop' in their Product!!!

@Jaz007 I'm also not saying that Sony shouldn't make their OWN hardware and use their Hardware to make the 'most' money from their Software - that Sony's Hardware isn't the 'best' value for money, the best looking, the best 'controller' or whatever else Sony do to compete on 'Hardware' - I just think they shouldn't use Software to make their Hardware Essential, a requirement.

If you 'prefer' to play on say a PC, then you can still play Sony's games - you pay Sony to access their Games on your preferred hardware. The 'incentive' to play on Sony's hardware maybe you get 'better' deals or Services, maybe some months of 'earlier' access as a result of supporting 'Sony' direct through their Hardware and/or services. The only way to play Horizon, GoW, Uncharted etc a 'bit' earlier or via a 'service' (like PS+, Game Pass, EA Play, Ubisoft+ etc) is through their 'platform/ecosystem'#

You can't get Uncharted on PS+ or even a 'bigger' discount through Steam (or ANY 3rd Party that Sony chooses) - so to take advantage of Sony's services/deals, you need to be in their Ecosystem and thats the incentive to be in their Ecosystem specifically but you should still be able to play 'elsewhere' if you prefer and pay 'Sony' for the 'right' to play on your preferred platform/ecosystem rather pay Sony for hardware and Sub services just to play 1 or 2 games a year you can't play ANYWHERE else.

@Jaz007 Consoles are sold at a loss (to start) to get you in to their Ecosystem and make money off of you and hold you to Ransome, hold content from you unless you pay a Subscription for the full library and feature set make back that 'loss' on that Sub fee alone to play the 'games' you want to play.

Take Battlefield - you can buy it or subscribe to EA to play it on whatever platform you have - however, if you have a 'Console', you also have to pay the Console manufacturer to play a game you've just bought. You can't play some 'exclusives' (or at least have access to all content/mode/features) without paying a Sub fee for opting to play on Subsidised Hardware.

PC gamers get a LOT of those Console 'exclusives', can buy direct from EA, Ubisoft etc or even shop around between Steam, Microsoft, GoG platforms - pay for the 'content/service' and able to play anywhere on a wide range of 'devices' made by different brands. Also are never expected to pay Asus, Lenovo etc to play games just because they also made the Hardware.

That's the point. EA games are still 'exclusive' to EA - that's EA's 'content' , owned by EA, made and published by EA so you have to 'pay' EA to access - just like you can buy DVD or Vinyl record to access TV/Music, or a Sub to 'netflix' to watch their content. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have to pay to access Content on whatever Hardware, I'm saying that you shouldn't have to buy specific branded Hardware for Content and then be held to ransome (sub fees for features/content) for 3rd Party Content too...

@AverageGamer Couldn't agree more - maybe for some, it would be about the most powerful Hardware but then they would buy and play 95% of their games on PC over a Console regardless today now anyway - only buying a console (if they do) for the 2-3 exclusives they release a year they want to play.

Why buy a PS5 when a PC plays 95% of the PS5 'library' at significantly better quality - Higher Res, higher grahical settings, higher frame rates etc.

People buy Switch or Playstation because it suits their Budget and/or their gaming preference. Maybe want to game 'on the go' a lot or can't afford to spend $1k+ and PS5 offers a good enugh bang for their more limited budget. Services, controller layout, UI, aesthetics, Cost etc can be the 'difference' - not the Content which is predominently the same across most Hardware these days

@MichaelNau If you go back to the Original idea of Video Games, they were very much 'built-in' to the Hardware - the Code and everything was built in. Whether it was Pong or Nintendo Game & Watch, Asteroids or Space Invaders at an Arcade for example - only 'Computers' could play 'multiple' games.

Console Gamess were also Hardware - they were built into Cartridges and so were ALL 'exclusive' - even if you had your own version of Pac-man or Space Invaders built into that Cartridge. Atari, Nintendo, Sega etc had ONLY 'Exclusives' - even if they shared 'some' titles, they were 'exclusive' versions built into Hardware (cartridges) for that Hardware to run - but they were the exception as the vast majority of games were made exclusively for specific Hardware by the Platform Holder to 'support' their Hardware.

Nowadays, the vast majority of Releases are made for Gamers wherever they 'choose' to play. They are not exclusive to any specific Hardware and the modern Consoles share the vast majority of titles. The only reason exclusives exist nowadays is to 'force' gamers to buy that Hardware specifically when 95% of the games you actually play every year could be played on ANY Hardware.

@LogicStrikesAgain You have to pay for the Content you want to access - not the the Hardware as WELL with Netflix. If you want to play a Sony game you also have to buy their Hardware. If you want to watch Stranger Things, you just buy access to that Content and can then access that Content wherever you want, on whatever Hardware you want at NO EXTRA Cost.

You also aren't paying for 'Specific' shows as such but the entire access to EVERYTHING on Netflix and that is just paying for 'Content' - exclusive or not to that service, you aren't Paying Netflix for Hardware to run that content 'exclusively' as well as having to pay them for their Content.

It's very simple - you pay Netflix for their Content, just like you can buy a DVD orn Bluray from any other TV/film content provider, but don't need to buy their own Hardware as well just to access that Content. You only pay for the CONTENT you want to Consume and are NOT FORCED to buy their Hardware just to consume their Content which you also have to pay for....

Sony could release their Content EVERYWHERE and you 'pay' them to access it - either by buying their Game or by Subbing to a service like PS+ - you on;y need to pay for the Conternt you 'consume' but aren't forced to consume that Content on their Hardware.

You don't buy a 'Netflix' TV/Player just to watch Netflix and have to buy a Disney made TV for Disney+ content - even if they, like EA, Ubisoft, and most other Content makers, make exclusive Content that only they can make. Battlefield is Exclusive to EA as in if you want to play Battlefield, you need to pay EA buy 'buying' their game (or an EA Subscription - EA Access or EA Play for example), same with Assassins Creed and Ubisoft. Those Publishers have their own 'Exclusive' content, just never require you to also buy 'their' Hardware or 'miss out' on ever playing/watching/accessing.

@AhmadSumadi You are 'forced' to buy a Playstation to play Sony's games or 'go without'. If you own and/or prefer to play on a PC, own hardware already that plays '90%' (if not more) of the games you enjoy (multi-platform), then having to buy 'Hardware' just or a few Exclusives, that's anti-consumer.

The difference between say Netflix vs Apple or Amazon Prime is that those 'services' are not Hardware dependent. You don't need to buy a different Display because Stranger things is 'exclusive' to Netflix - netflix is on Everything so you 'sub' for the Content. Its no different from EA content being available on ALL hardware and you either 'buying' it directly or Subbing to EA Play/Access on Whatever Hardware.

There is a massive difference between something being available ONLY on a piece of Hardware that you must spend $100's to own to access that content and that Content being available on ALL hardware only requiring a 'small' fee to access or own and doesn't matter what 'hardware' you own, you can still access your 'content' - you can watch Stranger Things on a PS5, on your Samsung Mobile, on an Asus PC, on an Xbox, on a Smart TV etc etc etc even if 'exclusive' to Netflix.

@Dr_Rocanlover Well there was a time that companies would use bespoke connectors, bespoke parts etc so that you had to buy their products or could only be repaired by certain people. However, that is becoming rarer as Laws are written to end Anti-consumer practices and ensure that Consumers actually have Choice, their 'rights' etc are protected etc too.

As a Consumer, you should feel annoyed if (for example), Sony Playstation Hardware would ONLY connect to a Sony TV - not via a 'Universal' Connector like HDMI but some Sony ONLY cable so you'd be forced to buy their Hardware just to 'Game'. You may 'excuse' that with a 'relatively' cheap and subsidised Console with a 'few' games exclusive a year - the vast majority available everywhere else anyway, but you'd be extremely annoyed if you had to buy various different TV's, Hifi/Music players etc because each Publisher/manufacturer also want to selll Hardware so keep their content Exclusive to their plastic box.

I'm not saying they shouldn't offer some 'incentives' or differences to compete, but Services, aesthetics, spec choices etc - some may 'favour' their Products more at that price point - like Frame rates or Resolution for example - but that's what 'competition' is. It is not keeping Content away so that your 'competitors' can't compete but making sure that your hardware is the 'best' option for ALL content.

@AhmadSumadi

Loss of exclusivity would give you no reason to choose one console over another. This notion rings true in every facet of entertainment. And why would any company not want you to have reason to choose them over their competitors?

Instead of being 'forced' to buy Hardware for 1 or 2 games a YEAR that are Exclusive and you want to play, you buy Hardware because its the 'best' option for you - whether that's because it fits your budget, your aesthetic, your 'preference' of Controller/spec etc - just like pretty much all other 'Entertainment' media.

Sony have to compete with Samsung, LG, TCL etc with their TV's for example as they all offer the same 'Entertainment' content. You never had to buy a specific brand of TV, Video/DVD/Bluray player, Record, CD, or Cassette player or 'miss' out on Content. You bought the Hardware based on price, specs etc and how well it 'competed' within that market.

Being forced to buy some Plastic box of electronics just to play a certain game, A game that could run equally well, If not Better elsewhere but refuse to release it elsewhere, is Anti-consumer. Its taking 'competition' away - you could build the 'worst' hardware, have the worst 'consumer' practices and reputation, but still 'sell' just because its the ONLY option to play 'Mario' or whatever 'exclusive'.

The whole point about Competition is that consumers are 'free' to choose, not 'forced' to buy because of 'exclusive' content. If Sony 'can't' compete with MS on specs, Controller layout or whatever other areas are 'Hardware' based, that's tough - do better 'next' time. How do you think PC builders 'compete' without 'Exclusive' content? They compete by making the 'best' hardware they can or at whatever popular Price-points so people choose which suits them best - they don't need to buy a MS Surface for Windows, MS Office etc 'exclusively'....

The ONLY advantage to building 'exclusives' is that you build the game to the Hardware. For example, if you know the amount of polygons, the tick rate of the chip, the amount of Data it can move per 'cycle', you make sure the Game you build keeps within those parameters. If you have an area that 'exceeds' the Polygon count for that hardware, you just change the way the Area was designed.

However, if you are building a game first and foremost, maybe you have some 'minimum/maximum' parameters to aim between depending on the range of Hardware you aim to release on. It then becomes a case of trying to fit as much as you can to the hardware whilst keeping it 'uniform' across various different SKU's.

There is technically no reason that companies couldn't port their games to other Platforms if they wanted but Financially, it may be more beneficial to keep them Exclusive so they can bleed their User base dry on ALL purchases - inc 3rd Party Multi-platform games they get money from just because they are a 'Platform' holder and keep their users spending Money on Subs etc to line their pockets - exclusives are the sweetener, the 'blackmail' to make you buy their Hardware and then keep you 'locked' in to paying Subs and bleeding you dry of your 'Gaming' funds...

Advancing Technology has always impacted the Human Labou/workforce and I bet EVERYONE - especially those babies crying about 'job losses' - have benefitted and/or own Prooducts where minimal 'Human' labour is involved.

Food, clothing, Education materials - whatever products you 'consume', there Machinery, Tools, Computers etc that have replaced Human Jobs and so if you 'refuse' to buy a game because they used AI to create some in-game assets that you NEVER own (they are owned by Studio/Publisher), why not refuse to purchase anything that wasn't made entirely by Human 'hands'.

AI is also far more efficient and accurate in Humans in assessing Xrays, scans etc in spotting health issues. So many areas where 'technology' has proven to be more efficient, more accurate, more reliable etc than employing a Human and practically everything you consume, whatever category (Agriculture, Food, Clothing/Textiles, Leisure, Education etc etc), there has been technological advancements that have replaced Humans in that workforce and many Skilled 'Jobs' from yesteryear are obsolete, or becoming obsolete.

Its not as if they are using 'AI' to create 'ART' - they are creating 'in -game' assets that they OWN, that are NOT sold as Art or that you can 'use' as Art. Even a Cosmetic Loading screen or emblem/badge they 'sell' so you can customise the 'look' in-game is still just an 'in-game' asset you don't technically own...

Refusing to buy a game because some Devs chose to use AI to 'generate' a realistic looking Jungle Biome for example instead of employing Hundreds to grind out making all those different bushes, trees etc and then having to place them all tediously by hand over months/years adding to the Cost/time to publishing, seems extremely ODD when EVERY other consumable you've bought has involved AI, Technology etc replacing Humans in that workforce!!

@theheadofabroom You believe what you want, but at the end of the day, in the context of the Gaming Industry, a 'leisure', not a vital or essential trade like food, clothing etc, these are just tools of the trade. They aren't creating 'art' but in-game Assets for a 'non-essential' product.

Mass Produced can also produce high quality, precision tools/equipment far more precisely, more consistently and in far more quantity than Humans. AI can detect or analyse thousands of Medical scans/images and spot medical issues 'missed' by Humans and do it in seconds.

If you think I care about whether 'Humans' with their faults, their inconsistency, their unreliability, their 'cost' to use, their own issues, especially in some leisure activity, you are wrong. Artists will still sell 'art' to Humans - if they are 'good' enough and/or their art appeals. Point is, Hand-made isn't necessarily always the 'best' and often Machinery, tools, AI etc have enabled Humans to produce far better and more consistent products, higher quality etc due to the advancement of technology and scientific advancement, precision tools and CNC's. Its still controlled by Humans so Humans are 'employed' to use these tools - even if those tools replaced 'humans'. Hand -made often has 'human' errors, human inconsistency, human imprecision etc - which may add to its 'charm', but that doesn't mean its 'better', higher quality or superior to some mass produced extremely consistent and accurate tool

@theheadofabroom And yet there are still many other machines and/or technological advancements that have replaced Humans because they are much faster, more consistent/accurate and/or reliable. The ability to weave cloth or transport 'grain' to a mill, turning cloth into clothing or grain into flour/bread. 1 Combine Harvester replaced dozens of Labourers required to harvest - you have 'affordable' clothes, food, distribution/communication etc etc because of technological tools, you have more 'free/leisure' time as a result too.

Quality is relative, Mass Produced doesn't necessaily mean they use 'low quality' materials and can be much higher quality, much higher degree of precision, more consistentcy etc than if produced by a Human. Humans are prone to mistakes, not consistent (which can add to its charm/appeal, but not quality) and why these tools, machines etc 'replace' Humans...

@LifeGirl Ever since humans have created tools and machines, Humans have been 'replaced'. Whether its just farm labourers nreplaced by Machinery or skilled craftsmen replaced by CNC, Robots and/or machinery/tools.

Where are all the Skilled Knitters, Weavers etc that used to be involved in the textile trade or workers in the Food/agricultural industry?

I think its ridiculous to care about who creates some 'in-game' ONLY asset (its not 'Art' as such, sold as art etc - its an 'in-game' asset), complaing about potential 'job' losses in what is 'non-essential (leisure), and often a 'hobby' - yet buy mass produced Products - all of which have used 'tools/technology' to minimise the workforce and maximise productivity.

A lot of old skills are LOST now due to Technology because they made those 'workers' obsolete, those 'jobs' redundant so people stopped training.

Tools still require Human control - Its still a Human that tells AI what it wants it to 'produce', still a Human that will assess and decide if that 'result' is worthy of use - its a Human mistake to let AI slop, slop that a Human asked AI to create BTW, in to their Game. Its just 'cheaper' than paying some Human to create slop in minutes to meet deadlines and content demand - NOT for Art, but for some n-game 'asset'...

@Flaming_Kaiser But AI is NOT creating 'Art' - its being asked to create in-game assets, in-game only cosmetic items by HUMANS and then the Humans are putting it into their game. If those humans are not issuing the right instruction and/or certainly not assessing the results of the tool, that is HUMAN error - not tools like AI.

They are not asking AI to create 'paintings' to be displayed inside a Gallery and charge people to view, to be sold as 'Art' etc. These are in-gamev assets - like creating all the other assets used in game - trees, cars, bushes, trash etc

Only out just over 2 weeks in November yet sold enough to top Novembers chart in the US and jump straight into the top 10 for the YEAR. Its sold more in just 2 weeks than the thousands of games released and/or available to buy from Jan 5th onwards despite the negativity and fact its on Game Pass on 2 out 3 of the release platforms.

It maybe down on some other games in the Franchise, but I'd hardly say its a 'disaster' or a Flop as the negativity and hate comments would want you to believe. I bet Sony would love to release a game that sold as many copies in just 2 weeks as CoD as would many other Publishers and they don't give their games away on a Sub service.

I'm not saying that to belittle 'other' games, but that in just 2 weeks, CoD has outsold all but 6 games (3 annual sport releases, MH:W, B4 & BF6) - inc all those Award winners at GotY shows, many gamers Game of the Year regardless and its 'sales' are expected to be decimated by Game Pass users. Its done that in just 2weeks since release to be the 7th 'best sellin' game in the US for the year (Jan 5th-Nov 29th) so far.

@Flaming_Kaiser Its not really 'ART', It's just in game 'assets' that are locked the game and not sold as 'art'. You can create a 'tree' or an entire Forest of trees if needed 'quickly' and easily. Its not always just some in game Loading screen, emblem or badge.

It also doesn't matter what is used to train - Whether that it is Photographs, Human created Art, or whatever - its no different from Humans 'copying' other Humans until they have developed and gained enough experience to create their own style or work on Commissions. And MANY are 'inspired' by others work too - copying enough but tweaking enough to avoid plagarism. And every Portrait or Landscape, every 'real life' piece of Art is copying what came before.

AI is still just a tool, it takes a 'Human' to give it instruction as to what is required and humans that have to assess and decide if what it produces is 'good' enough. It is a conscious decision by HUMANS to use a 'tool' for their 'Project' and its their Game - they own the code, the assets etc - and may not outright own 3rd Party created assets/art/music etc that they've had to licence - so create those with a 'tool' instead.

Whether a 'tree' or an in-game 'graphic', it really doesn't matter who creates the 'asset', its not 'sold' as Art, its just an 'asset' for the game code to pull in at certain points and you can pay a person to sit there for years creating tree after tree after tree for some environmental artist to use or have AI create a bunch you can stick in, maybe create a bunch of in-game branded products to avoid 'copyright' but adds to the overall world detail.

Point is, Humans are involved and have to be involved - Games are not being made by AI, they are still made by humans. Humans that decide which 'tools' to use to enable their vision, humans that decide whether what they've created (with/without assistance from AI) is 'good enough' to release and Hiumans that will decide whether or not its worth playing...

So is this related to that statue thing that has been attributed to Diablo, GoW etc? Last I heard Crystal Dynamics were 'behind' schedule after layoffs, and that was before PD was cancelled and more staff layoffs. I've been half expecting to see Tomb Raider cancelled and CD closed as they've been culled so much in recent years...

Hopefully, that won't happen and things improve for Crystal Dynamics as I've really liked their Tomb Raider games.

@arto Your internal SSD cannot be expanded big enough to play the entire game - hence it relies on Streaming to bring you the world at a 1:1 scale with that much detail and accuracy. You don't have enough storage space to save all the assets and data for the entire 'Earth' so its install size is relative low.

Therefore its not all on disc and wouldn't even fit on 2 or 3 discs if they were to supply 'everything'.

@Flurpsel Exactly - I don't buy slop or mediocre products made entirely by Humans so I won't accept that from Humans using AI tools either. There are many games that Humans have poured their Heart and Soul into, games they've spent years of their life working on that I wouldn't buy for various reasons because they didn't do enough to convince me they were worth my time or money.

Every game has to convince me its worth my time, let alone my Money and if I don't think the 'quality' is there, regardless of who made it and/or what tools were involved, I vote with my wallet.

@Max_the_German Couldn't agree more - AI itself isn't the problem - its incompetent 'Humans' that are not using AI effectively and/or 'accepting' whatever mistakes it makes.

Lets be honest here, if a Human created art with the amount of 'mistakes' (6 fingers, alignment/perspective mistakes etc), it would be 'rejected' or at least 'corrected' before it would be used. Bad 'AI' is the result of incompetent Human usage of that Tool.

AI doesn't just make 'art' - it has to be given Human input and that human has the option to accept, decline or even give more 'input' to the AI to get a more appropriate piece.

They aren't really creating 'ART' anyway, they are only creating in-game assets that you don't own and are not being 'sold' as ART, but as in-game assets for customisation for example.

It's a bit like saying CNC's are ruining guitar making as it replaces Skilled Luthiers with machines but Humans have to be 'involved' in operating the tools and assessing the results to decide if its usable or not, look for 'errors/mistakes' before proceeding - let alone making it to market.

If I see AI assets used in ANY game with mistakes - like six fingers for example, I don't blame 'AI' for that, but the 'Human' that accepted that Asset without correcting/amending and used it in their game. AI doesn't randomly create these, doesn't force humans to use it etc - Its still a Human not using the tools effectively to get the 'best' results.

As with all tools, its about the Human user/operator. A bad workman blames his tools but its 'humans' that control and decide to use the 'bad'. Whoever decide to use that 'AI' generated asset is the problem, not the AI itself...

@SuntannedDuck2 But that's on the developers and what their aim is - is it to 'sell', to tell their story, to 'create' that 'something' you find fresh, new or unique enough that it feels like you've waited a lifetime for someone to make - the 'tools' and technology are all there and have been so that's why its 'iterative'.

If you wanted to do something in game, by the 360/PS3 era, you basically could and since then, its all about 'refining' and improving on QoL aspects - loading times, seamless transitions between environments (inside and outside for example) because 'every' game-lay mechanic has been done and in full 3D with home cinema quality audio and resolution - now just need to bring the 'quality' of the visuals and frame-rates up to show 'meaningful' technological upgrades but nothing stopping 'Devs' from creating ANY game, but arguably they are most likely looking to win a 'Popularity' contest and appeal to the Most people to maximise revenue rather than try and invent some new or bring back some 'obsolete' game-play mechanic and risk their Studio/Career if it fails to meet expectations 'financially'. Regardless of how critically acclaimed or 'beloved' by the few that bought, if not 'commercially' successful, it can kill their studio/career so the risks to trying something 'different' - when even making some changes in sequels is 'too much' for some gamers, is perhaps too high for many to gamble on.

@SuntannedDuck2 I know what you mean, they were more creative with 'less' - where are the car 'combat' games or other 'niche' variations on those basic game-play mechanics.

Well that comes down to cost as they make them to 'compete' graphicallly and on performance (unless indie - but then its also likely 'nostalgic' look) and potential revenue. It's cost vs potential sales revenue and ideally as a producer of product, you want the cost low and revenue high to be successful. Selling a 'small' budget game to a small global audience can be profitable but through more budget, more sales required and with so much competition and even decent games struggling to hit their required sales, mediocre or even 'Niche' games are certainly going to be a big gamble.

That's also why they are iterating on 'past' successes and big sellers (not those with 'cult' followings) - its expensive to invest 'years' of staff work hours, all their expenses and marketing etc to bring that to public access so they want to invest in the 'least' riskiest ideas...

That's why independent Studio's are more likely to see the more 'experimental' or niche game-play styles being offered and triple AAA is becoming the big mainstream versions of the most popular styles of games. But really its down to popularity, cost, potential revenue, can they do something 'better/different' enough to become successful when so many others already exist....

@SuntannedDuck2 The last 2 generations are basically iterating on what really were the final hurdles of 'Game-play' creation - since then, its only improving upon and/or speeding up what essentially was created before.

Once you transitioned into actually being able to tell 3D stories with Movie Quality Audio and set Game-play in any type of situation or setting you could imagine, the rest will always be more about 'refining' and improving on what came before. Racing games went from pixels to very boxy polygons to looking like the real thing on film in certain Photographic modes. Big open expanses to explore have become quicker to travel across, more densely packed and far fewer (if any) loading areas between zones - the equivalent of elevator rides or door opening cut scenes....

Point is, if you want a game that offers a specific 'Game-play' style, chances are there are games that offer it - even in Indie that you maybe surprised to find some more unusual Game-play loops/Mechanics. There is always something 'similar', something that came before it and perhaps did it better becausse it was also 'new' and 'fresh' feeling - something newer games can't deliver...

Its new Stories or combining ideas/mechanics with maybe genres not most expect, but still deliver a very polished and cohesive package to establish itself amongst 'others' in its genre, having unique settings or at least a unique interpretation of in the case of post apocolyptic game setting.

Its more about improving Graphics for more immersion and realism which also ties into their second area of improvement, doing thatand at faster frame rates. Whatever game-play mechanic or loop has already been done so its up to developers to 'create' a reason you want to play their game through story, through its genre and its aesthetic.

No dev sets out to make a 'bad' product and in most cases, they 'believe' in their ideas, their concepts etc and pour their heart and soul into the project. But that doesn't mean that it deserves 'Commercial' success or that people should buy their Product.

A game releasing today isn't 'competing' for your time/money with just the other 'new' releases, but all the other games, products, services etc that also 'compete' for your time. These generations of Hardware have some of the 'biggest' Libraries ever - thanks to Backwards Compatibility and years and years worth of releases. Not only that, you also Services (even 'basic' Sub services) that give access to games at no extra charge and Free to Play has grown too giving gamers a LOT of choice to fill their time wihout needing to spend 'money', let alone the cost of new releases. Why spend $70 on something to play when you have 100's of games in your backlog you can play at 'no' cost, 100's of Free to play games (F2P and Sub service offerings) and if those don't appeal, 100's of Cheap games in sales before considering a full price new release.

That's just in gaming, but other distractions for your time, like youtube/twitch etc can easily fill your 'time' at no extra cost, entertain etc that you don't have the time to play games and with cost of living going up, people are not spending money as 'freely', opting to either save money or only spend it on the 'few' new products they can't 'live without'.

As much as Devs pour themselves into a project, it doesn't make it essential or necessarily enjoyable for all. Some may think Picasso's Art is 'awful' and not worth your time or money to see

@Flaming_Kaiser Just like EVERY other industry that has 'evolved' to use tools, machinery, technology etc to replace humans. Every industry has developed tools etc that inevitably reduce the 'workforce' and/or time required to produce something - thus 'cutting' costs (less wages - but someone has to operate, maintain etc those tools - to increase profitability, yield or even time to market)

With games escalating not only in Costs to manufacture but also time taken, they either have to raise prices or find ways to cut the time and/or costs down - which is what happened with every other industry. You had to go to a metalworker (or have the skill) to make your own Cutlery set, yet now you can buy a complete family set for the cost of 1-hand-made piece of cutlery.

The fact the Rich don't share is irrelevant - it never stopped those that bought in Machinery to replace the hundreds of human Labourers required by Farmers and the Textile industry, Virtually everything you buy today is manufactured by 'minimal' Human involvement operating (or overseeing) modern day tools, machinery etc that have replaced the vast majority of People required for that company to produce their products.

I don't think Sequels are necessarily to blame, its more down to fact that they seem like all they've done is improve graphics over 5yrs and not create something that feels 'new/fresh' or meets expectations as they can be 'elevated' after such a long development time - its almost long enough that the game doesn't look that different to how you remembered the first which often is better than it looks compared to the newer version.

It's a case of just more of the same with 'minor' tweaks or additions on game-play and a slight graphical jump (even if its quite large in technical levels - overall perception is the reason) rather than feeling like a Full sequel that evolves the Game-play after so many years. CoD is still CoD, but maybe they need to change something again (engine, style, structure) as its too much a 'Sequel' in that sense - even if the Game-play is Solid, fun and more bigger, its just more of the same CoD game-play loop.

@Flaming_Kaiser That's the American Corporate System that protects the Businesses and looks after the ones that Donate the most to their Senators to ensure they can continue to exploit the individuals, the citizens with little/no employment laws.

However, that's a 'political' topic and not one for a Gaming website - but all I say is where are all the skilled clothes Makers for example. Since the Industrial Revolution, EVERY trade has seen the 'loss' of Skilled Labour to machinery, technological advancement etc, replaced by 'tools' that still need Human control, supervision, maintenance etc.

Instead of maybe Americans having to work 90hr weeks to ensure that they don't get fired, maybe they too could get a 37.5hr week and a 'fair wage' instead of relying on tipping culture, minimum 5wks Annual Leave, Maternity/Sick Pay etc etc - but maybe I'm just more Optimistic because I don't live in Corporate America where Humans are respected and have many laws protecting us from Big Corporate BS...

@Flaming_Kaiser Standards?? If that's your standards, I'm glad thatI don't share them - particularly the education as Slave Labour is the abuse and exploitation of Humans and completely abhorrant, but the use of AI, Computers, Robots, machines etc etc to replace 'humans' in the workforce is NOT even close to the same thing.

Do you really care if your clothes are hand-made by humans in every part or maybe we should ban Computers entirely as they take 'jobs' away from people, maybe everyone should be back in the factories sewing, weaving, knitting etc ettc instead of using powered Machinery.

I don't care if a group of 1000 people were needed to make a game or, with AI, they can cut that down to just 10 people, that still made 'by' humans. It doesn't matter if you use a Computer or some machine/robot to manufacture 99% of the products Humans consume everyday without - work that used to be done by 'skilled' Humans that were replaced by more efficient and cheaper (long term) tools.

I am against things like Slave Labour, crunch in Studio's, people expected to work more than 'contracted' hours and not 'paid' for every hour, etc - delays cost money and time too. The thing about 'Tools' is that they require at least 1 human to 'operate' and ensure that AI is 'functioning' as intended. I don't care how many 'tools', machines, robots etc are used to make products I enjoy - they are still ultimately made by 'humans' - just a lot less than before. Just like you have far less Humans working in Factories as machinery has replaced the majority, or far less working in offices as Computers/tech have replaced a lot of Staff there too.

There is a big difference between Forcing Humans to work on something or using tools to make those Humans unnecessary in the first place!!! Those people can still 'work', still earn money, still make 'Art' to sell as 'real' Human art, AI can't perform on a Stage in front of People etc and Humans are still 'in control' of the tools and ultimately, the product - So I don't care if it's made by 10 people (with the use of AI) or 100 people (without AI). I'd care more if that Studio with 100 were under pressure, crunching and/or working any 'minute' without Pay - the conditions for the 'human' element...

I'll never understand the issue with using AI - its not as if the Art is being Sold as 'art' - its some throwaway content in a game that will be replaced in a year with yet another iteration. It was never intended to be 'displayed' in an Art Museum, its a 'token' for completing a challenge or ranking up, they are 'free' extras generated to bulk out the content and be a bit more aesthetically interesting than 'nothing'.

You aren't paying for a 'Game' and all its Art/Assets - they are owned by the Publisher/Developer anyway. You are paying for the right to access and enjoy their software in your home instead of going to an Arcade and paying for everytime you want to play a 'match', like paying to go and watch a Movie or paying for a 'pass' at Disneyland to go 'anywhere', go on the rides, have the Disney experience.

Point is, you aren't buying Art or the Game, you are paying to experience their Game. I'd rather have AI art than no Art and its not as if I'm going to want Prints to hang on my wall as 'Art'. I have no issue at all with Humans using Tools to make their jobs easier/quicker etc and see AI as no different from a CNC machine that replaces 'skilled' artists/craftsmen from doing 'repetitive' boring work to mass produce in quantity and much, much quicker and far loss costly too.

I still think a Human has to be in control of the tool and have the final say on whether the product is acceptable. I don't have an issue with the AI drawing 6 fingers instead of 5, I have more of an issue with the Human who either controlled the AI or approved the resulting product. Its not the AI's fault, its the person who used the AI tool, the person that chose to use that creation instead of amending, correcting or selecting a different option.

AI is just a 'tool' - driven by Humans and Humans have the final say on whether or not, what the AI has produced was acceptable for their game. Its 'human error' as far as I am concerned if 'bad' Art (regardless of whether it was AI or Human created) gets into a game - a Human should use their own eyes, judgement etc to decide whether or not that 'art' is acceptable - just like we as Humans will decide if we think their 'Game' is worth paying for, waiting for a sale or just not worth their time at all - even if FREE to play through some service or whatever.

I buy guitars made by CNC machines that 80yrs ago would have been made by skilled woodworkers or at the very least, trained machine operators (trained to use the various Power Tools that made production a Lot faster and/or reduced workers - before Powered Machines/Robots replaced them). Now a Single Person running a CNC machine can make hundreds of identical Guitar bodies every week where before it would take 30+ to make that many. Quality is arguably better and much more consistent too for the cost (which includes time/wages) - as a Human to make 20 different Emblems, Calling Cards etc and see how long that takes and how much it costs if you also want to see Drafts for approval, make amendments etc...

I don't know enough (or care) what Success would mean for Sony. If they expect to reach 20m and only reach 10m is that a failure - even if it makes money? We've seen games sell well enough compared to other similarly priced games, yet the Publisher says the game failed to meet expectations.

As I don't care about gaming on Mobiles, I couldn't care less. I do know that Mobile gaming is by far the MOST popular way people game globally - although many gamers wouldn't consider the majority as 'Gamers'. If I want to game on the go, on a handheld device, I'll own a dedicated Gaming Handheld (in fact I own a few).

I think with Cloud Gaming now a viable option and on the Rise, Sony can reach more Gamers with their traditionally console releases and having a 'mobile' presence could lead those to try other R&C or Horizon games on their Mobile via cloud too which could contribute to 'success'.

A tough few years for Crystal Dynamics - forced to make Marvel Avengers into a Live Service 'Flop' by Square Enix who then sold them off (and other Western Studios/IPs). Since then, have been 'involved' in two projects, 1 of which was cancelled and the other had reports of being 'behind' when they cut staff the first time.

I really liked their Tomb Raider Reboot and follow up, but its not looking good for them or their next project right now...

Exactly as expected! You cannot have a definitive rule to suit EVERY game. Some games are reliant on Online servers and ongoing Anti-cheat support - without that, the game is NOT the same experience.

Piracy is illegal but selling you a Licence to access their Software is NOT. Whether you 'like' that situation or not is irrelevant, the fact is that you don't own the Game/Software, just a Licence to access - you 'paid' to play agreeing to the terms and conditions of that License and use of their Software. Breaches can result in them revoking your Licence - for example getting banned/blocked because you used a cheat or insulted another player.

Every game is also different - you have F2P games for example you didn't buy a Licence for and AA, AAA budget alternatives, Online only games, offline only and combination games, some with Bots others relying on human players to fill lobbies enough to 'work' at low enough ping. You also have game licences you don't own outright, have conditions attached - like PS+ games that require an Active PS+ subscription to keep your access.

Devs don't necc=essarily want 'crippled' games on the market or remaining 'accessible' when they are barely 'playable' or can't offer the same experience anymore.

I do think that maybe Publishers should be Clearer that you are ONLY buying a License to 'play', paying to access someone elses Software and enjoy it too - like buying a Ticket to a movie or theatre show, paying for the right to play/use something that doesn't belong to you - similar to paying for a Licence to use another's IP (Marvel, MLB etc)

@naruball different in the fact that one plays games natively whilst the other does not - but both are gaming handhelds, both are designed for gamers looking to play games on the go, on a portable device.

Its the same as a Switch or a Steamdeck too in that these are ALL handheld portable gaming devices for the purpose of gaming. The only difference is the cost - one is cheap so has NO Native gaming capability whilst the rest go up in price depending on specs and capabilities. They can ALL stream games, all let you play games on the go or in bed.

Point is, they are NOT vastly different and designed for gamers to let you game away from a TV. They would all come under Gaming section for hardware, bought by gamers and considered Gaming Handheld devices. The difference is 'cost' which determines its gaming capability/spec. A Portal is about ergonomics and screen rather than technical ability to deliver games natively and as you go 'up' the price, the 'more' ways to play games and/or more Gaming platforms (both Native and Cloud enabled) it has access too - Handheld PCs having the most Games and Platforms - inc Sony's streaming platform that Portal uses, Xbox's Cloud, nVidia's GeForce Now etc.

The only reason to buy a Portal, a Steamdeck, a Switch etc is for Gaming. I can understand that if you don't have the 'budget' or happy to accept more 'limitations' on what that gaming Hardware offers (Cloud and/or Native gaming, higher graphics/performance, Storage capacity, Screen Quality etc) then cheaper options may well be 'adequate' for their needs.

Like I said though, I would never buy a Streaming ONLY device - I don't care if it is made by Sony, Microsoft or a 3rd Party, if it doesn't play games natively, I won't buy. If I needed to 'stream' because the TV is out of action, I'd make do with devices I already own - my Laptop and a DS5 for example - can't get 'cheaper' than that.

I'd save that £200 and put it towards buying something that will play games natively as that too will likely do ALL the streaming functionality I'd want/need and play games where a Streaming only device is nothing more than a useless, pointless £200 gaming machine that can't play ANY games - the reason you buy a Gaming handheld!!

As I have said before, I believe AI is nothing more than a tool and will still require Humans to have the ultimate say. It just replaces a LOT of the 'grunt' work (repetitive work often carried out by many people to cut down on time taken) regardless of 'how skilled' you had to be - many involved in clothing trade were highly skilled before machines that can sew, knit, weave, spin etc were required, same with all Manufacturing of products that have gone from purely 'hand-made' by skilled craftsmen and them then using power-assisted tools to machines, robots, CNC's etc etc that have replaced a LOT of those skilled workmen.

Things that may have taken a 100men a week to do can be done in hours today, if not less with modern technology. If you are also making products for Humans, it makes sense that Humans will at least have the final Quality Assurance checks and Human Consumers will at the end of the day not buy 'defective' products - Humans will review and influence its success.

Bad Workmen Blame their tools as far as I am concerned and I have no issue with them using AI if the 'product' they deliver is at the quality expected, if not higher! If not, that is 'HUMAN' failing to utilise AI effectively or relying on it entirely without doing any checking yourself.

I just hope we don't see that many bad workmen blaming tools when its driven by Human input and they are responsible for the final product.

@antlion Couldn't agree more - although I would say that more fore PureXbox as I don't currently game on Nintendo so I don't frequent that site, but in the family, I agree.

On topic though, Sometimes I'm happy to know how long a game has taken me to complete or surprised how many hours over the years have amounted to, but I don't know that I'd want all the time broken down into every session with dates too...

I'm also OK with an Annual Gaming report - Total Hours, top 5 games in time spent etc but it seems a bit excessive - unless you are trying to manage something.

@UltimateOtaku91 Its possible - but then the RoG Xbox Ally's are NOT Consoles and limited to just 1 store/platform. There are plenty of alternatives from other brands/manufacturers too - inc Lenovo and MSi. Even the 'non-Xbox' branded Ally's are all part of exactly the same platform.

That's a bit like saying I bet PS5's sell more than a specific Gaming Laptop made by Alienware for example despite all the other Gaming Laptops/Desktops and Handhelds.

As far as Gaming goes, actually they play modern games much better than you make out, and, if you really are 'concerned' about Battery life, can Stream for 8hrs+. Most games will run on 'Silent' mode and get 3-4hrs and quite a lot games run at 1080p/ultra/120fps with ease - particularly Indies and older/last gen games. There are more that run well than don't - but at least runs them better than Portal can.

Its not as if those Handheld PC's can't do everything Portal can too and with decent battery life too. The fact that you have choice to play natively is why its 10x better despite not 10x the Cost as far as I'm concerned

@CallMeDuraSouka Actually, I'm NOT a diehard MS fan - I am a Gamer first and foremost and I see NO point in buying a 'Streaming' Only device - I wouldn't buy one just to use Xbox Cloud so I equally wouldn't buy one for Playstation.

The only reason I mentioned the 'Xbox' Ally in particular was because of ALL alternative Handheld gaming devices, its the most 'similar' in design principals - ie that full size Console Controller ergonomics with a Screen built-in. Neither cheaper Steamdeck/Switch handhelds or other PC Handhelds offer same degree of comfort.

I too can use my Handheld PC's whilst sat on the sofa next to my wife/kids whilst they watch something on TV and use Streaming to extend the Battery life to 8hrs+ if I wanted or play natively plugged in at more than 60fps with far less lag/latency. I can play Spider-Man, God of War or many other Playstation games - inc old Playstation console games ANYWHERE.

It also gives me access to Steam, Xbox, Battlenet, GoG etc. It does everything Portal does as well as Portal does it but also isn't so limited or restricted, isn't a useless paperweight if you actually use it 'on the go' as a Handheld is designed for etc.

I wouldn't buy ANY of the other Streaming only devices - just like I had no interest in Google or Amazon's Streaming only gaming boxes and wouldn't buy a Console that only allowed streaming. If its more about playing on the sofa whilst the TV is in use, I'd use my Laptop with a DS5 rather than waste £200 for those moments.

Its because I am a gamer that I won't accept 'streaming' only - not because you think I'm anti-playstation/Sony - I again wouldn't buy an Xbox streaming only product either or ANY 'brand' for that matter. It has nothing to do with fanboyism, but of course I'm not praising Sony so I must be an Xbox fanboy despite owning and playing on Every Playstation for the past 30yrs.

Defending it makes you seem like a gullible Sony Fanboy, one of the Whales that Sony relies on to buy their pointless products. Yes it is 'pointless' as it does nothing you can't do with devices you probably already own (a device with screen to stream to and/or controller).

@naruball, I too have owned EVERY Playstation Console, inc a PS4 Pro and various Handhelds over the years - starting with Game and Watch Nintendo Handhelds before 'consoles' came out but the one thing they have ALL had in common is that those devices ALL played games natively.

That also means that you can game at ANY time, maybe not play 'Any' game as some are reliant on Internet to play, but its better than being stuck in Hospital, stuck on a long haul journey or happen to be somewhere where you CANNOT play games on a Gaming Handheld.

Yes it may be 'adequate' for those few times your TV is being used by Kids/Partner, but it will also let you down in more places too.

@naruball @LogicStrikesAgain Are they targeting different audiences - because to me they are still Handheld Gaming devices aimed at 'gamers' who maybe want to game away from the 'home' set-up, who maybe can't always access their Console and/or TV.

The only real difference is the price point they've targetted and that has governed their Features/Functionality. I'd still rather pay 2-3x more for something that will play Natively and enable me to literally play ANYWHERE, not just where the internet is strong enough, the ability to play natively and what makes it even more 'worth' paying more for is the fact that it not only has a significantly much larger library of games, it also will play old Console games natively via Emulation - inc PS1-PS3 era games and does everything a Portal can too.

I'm sure that people buying a Portal would hope to be able to use it on the go as a 'portable' gaming device, use it outside the home to game as well. Not just use it when their partner/kids are using the TV - but maybe on the bus/train, on holiday, waiting at the Drs/Hospital, on an aeroplane!!!

As I said, its not as if these Handheld PC's won't allow to do EVERYTHING the Portal can so is effectively offering exactly the same functionality/feature too. I'd also use a mobile/laptop and my DS5 controller over 'buying' a dedicated Streaming device, products I already own just to 'stream'.

I get that people maybe won't spend £600 on a PC Handheld, but I'd buy a Cheaper Steamdeck over a Portal because I want to know that I can play games 'Anywhere', inc Offline. Handheld means, untethered gaming to me and bbeing tethered to ONLY areas of decent internet access is NOT worth paying for imo. That's why I would rather pay more for a Handheld gaming device because the whole point is to play 'games' on it and if you find yourself in an area where that 'functionality' is not available due to 'weak/intermittent' internet service, you have a useless £200 piece of plastic...

@Flaming_Kaiser Not necessarily - it may mean more games get released every year because they aren't wasting 2-3 years of grinding out making all the 'assets' for the game, take more 'game-play' risks because you have much smaller 'teams' and much faster development times etc.

Tools are developed to make Human 'work' easier/quicker, tasks once impossible or extremely labour intensive are now done by 'tools' built by Humans to make their life easier. AI is just a 'tool'. Its the 'Human' behind the tool that matters - a Bad Workman blames his tools and it still comes down to the 'Human' who is using 'AI' tools in their Development process!

Some people may well 'abuse' AI and use it to make quick 'slop', but like I said, games made by Humans that don't release 'perfect' and 'complete', don't score at least 8-9/10 etc struggle to sell today so I can't see 'slop' selling regardless of whether AI was used or not.

@ButterySmooth30FPS @LogicStrikesAgain and again 'NO' I'm not saying a £200 device should compete with a £550 device (Xbox Ally - white version) so definitely not a £800 device (Xbox Ally X), I'm just say that I wouldn't waste £200 on what is basically a Playstation Controller with built in Screen/Wifi.

If I was 'OK' with a Streaming ONLY option, I have my mobile, Laptop or even my OG RoG Ally for example - all capable of streaming Playstation and yet also offer a whole lot more versatility, native games and utility.

I'd rather pay more for a Steamdeck, than buy a Streaming ONLY device that's completely useless without a decent internet connection - something a 'portable' device often struggles with 'on the go'. Having the option to play games Natively is essential on a Portable device imo and the ability to play games like Spider-Man, God of War, Horizon, Last of Us etc ANYWHERE regardless of internet strength is worth the difference in cost - I'd even pay 5-10x as much on a Handheld that plays games natively than for one that relies solely on streaming!! Its not as if these devices won't let you 'stream' PS games to if you want as well...

@naruball The Xbox Ally costs £550/$600 yet is a full Gaming PC dellivering at least Steamdeck Quality/Performance equivalent on a similar Battery power mode.

It may cost 2-3x more than a PS Portal, but it also plays games like Spider-Man, Horizon, God of War etc natively, offline wherever you want to play - not limited to streaming only and only where 'internet' is strong enough. It has a 1080p 120hz VRR Display and full size Controller layout - and, if you want to stream, you can do that too.

Point is, I wouldn't waste £200 on something that is 'useless' for travel when it seems designed most with travel in mind, for what is essentially nothing more than a Controller with a Screen and wifi. I can take my Handheld PC on holiday and know that I can play games regardless of whether I have internet access because it has actual 'Hardware' inside to run the game and the ONLY reason I mention the 'Xbox' Ally as opposed to all other Handheld PC's is because that too offers full size ergonomics instead of 70% scaled down versions you find on all others.

For £550, I'd rather buy an 'Xbox' Ally (white one) to play games NATIVELY on a device that 'feels' like a normal controller in hand. In fact I have an OG RoG Ally that I'd rather own than ANY streaming only device as that too can be used to 'stream' if you really want...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner I never said it should compete with a £900 (in fact the Xbox Ally costs £550 which is MUCH closer to the £200) or even a Steamdeck makes 10x more sense to me than buying some crap streaming only device that can't play games natively and completely useless without a decent internet signal, Something that's incredibly likely with travelling.

Point is, for double the Cost, you can buy a Steamdeck and less than 3x the cost, buy something that not only plays games natively, it also has a much larger Library and can do EVERYTHING that the Portal can too.

Unlike one of the most pointless gaming handhelds on the market, Handheld PC's at least let you play games like Spider-Man, Last of Us, God of War, R&C, Horizon:ZD etc Natively on the go - your Playstation Portal doesn't!!!

The reason I picked 'Xbox' Ally was because there is a £550/$600 version which is not that unreasonable for an ALL in One device that plays modern games natively - I certainly didn't say the Xbox Ally X, although both do have a 'full size' controller layout like the Portal for the best ergonomics.

I'd rather pay 5x more for something that not only plays games 'Naively', but that also allows me to play a much larger library of games.

I find it odd that a 'streaming only' device is somehow popular when the idea of Streaming games (something MS has offered for years now), seems to be very 'unpopular'. I also find it funny that they accept a 'Playstation' Handheld that doesn't play ANY Playstation Games natively but then question an 'Xbox' branded Handheld that does play games Natively as well as Stream their 'Console' ONLY games.

Personally, I won't buy any device that relies on Streaming ONLY but each to their own. I'd rather buy a Handheld PC for example and play games Natively - maybe only dipping in to a Streamed game for convenience (for example quicker than installing, not buying a 'PC' specific version, want to prolong battery life etc). If I was that 'desperate' to play a PS game away from my console, I would use something I already own. I'd never buy something that is Streaming ONLY - especially not a 'Portable' device I'd want to use away from home.