BAMozzy

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!!

@Oxy That Poster above you also knows that what you ACTUALLY pay for is just a Licence to access the Software that's not owned or sold to you but distributed so you can access it via that licence. The Software is owned by the Publisher/developer and you ONLY buy a Licence to access.

Therefore they could argue that you are supplied exactly what you paid for - that 'licence' on the Disc.

The point I was making though is that the Disc is JUST a distribution method - like the internet is. The game doesn't run from either the disc or the internet and therefore requires Downloading and installation regardless of whether your purchase Physical or Digital

If you want to sell your 'License' then buying on Disc makes sense, but worrying about the amount of content on disc is irrelevant. The only time its relevant is if you want to re-download in the distant future when the console is no longer 'online' or you have a a download limit on your internet, extremely slow or no internet connection at all. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter how its distributed, where its downloaded from.

The way some people go on about Physical, you'd think that they don't need to Download and install at all, that the game is running from disc because they have to put the disc in every time, that they can't cope with any 'internet' download despite it making NO difference as both internet and disc are 'distribution' only.

I could understand it if the game was running from the disc or the internet depending on your purchase decision - but its more just a distribution preference, a 'licence' preference - as in one you can sell on or not. You don't 'need' the whole game on disc unless you have NO or Limited Internet access because once its downloaded from either disc, internet or both, its installed on the SSD and runs on the SSD, the disc is ONLY required for proving you still own a valid licence.

@Dubplant That doesn't mean you don't have to download and/or install from the disc, that's just that no 'Online' download is required as the game code is on the disc and you don't need to connect to the internet to download any content, patches etc to play.

That doesn't mean the game is RUNNING from the disc, that you do NOT have to install to your SSD to Play. The data transfer speeds are not fast enough from Disc to reun the game smoothly, not fast enough to play the game directly from the Disc. Games haven't been playable from Disc since the PS3 generation. Even last Gen PS4 games had to be installed to your HDD and now with modern games requiring SSD transfer speeds, you have to install games to your SSD to play.

The fact you don't 'need' to go online or download Patches/Content to play doesn't mean the game is RUNNING from the disc - it just means you can Download and insttall 'everything' from the Disc, don't need to go online to download, that everything you 'need' to play is supplied on disc for installation to your SSD.

As I said, you still need the disc to play because that's where the License key, the bit you actually bought and own, is stored so you'll still need to put the disc in the Console to access the game code you've downloaded and installed onto your SSD, but then the game is running from the SSD, not the Disc.

Every game needs to be installed to the SSD to run, but very few games supply everything on disc so you 'need' online connections to download and install content, patches etc - those games listed on that website are the 'few' games where you may not need an Online connection, you can play by downloading everything from the disc 'offline' and installing to SSD to play from SSD (not Disc)...

@jFug NO game Plays off the DISC - EVERY game has to be downloaded and installed to your SSD before you can play it - the ONLY difference is where the game code is downloaded from. With Physical, you download from Disc and with Digital, you download from a Server.

The ONLY reason you need to insert the disc to play a game is because the License you purchase to access the game is stored on the disc - its their way of ensuring you still own a valid licence, not sold the Disc despite the game being installed on your internal storage. With Digital, that Licence you purchased is stored with your Digital Profile so you need to be signed into your account.

Without signing in or putting a disc in (depending on whether you bought digital or physical), the game, which is installed and plays from your SSD, will not run at all - The Game 'Code' is useless without the Licence key to access - the bit you actually purchased - the game/game code belongs to the Publisher.

The Disc, apart from the fact it has your 'Licence Key' embedded, is just a 'delivery' method to deliver the Game Code for you to be able to Download and install. It doesn't really matter where you 'download' from, Disc, Internet or Both, as the game MUST be downloaded and installed to your Storage to actually run as the Disc transfer rate/read rate is far too slow for games to 'run' and has been since the PS4 era - EVERY game must be Downloaded and installed, no game runs from Disc.

The ONLY advantage is that you can sell/trade your Disc and maybe in the distant future, if you've deleted your game from your SSD, you can redownload and install it from the Disc if you no longer have internet access on that Hardware.

But saying you won't buy if you can't play it from Disc is ridiculous because NO game is playable from Disc - hence you have to download/install EVERY game. You can't put a disc in and start playing immediately like you could in the PS3 era - not unless you've installed it to your SSD first!

5yrs+ to make a game, 5yrs+ of paying to keep that Studio open, its electricity, rent, water, business insurance etc, 5yrs+ of paying a staff team of several hundred, and any related costs, Health Insurance, Tax etc, and any additional costs for external needs - voice actors, additional developer support teams etc.

And then factor in the rise in costs over those 5yrs of development as Pay and rates all go up.

Its not surprising that games are costing a LOT and with Rates climbing a LOT as well as Games taking longer and longer to develop, its not surprising that Companies are shedding Staff and/or looking to AI to reduce both the time taken to bring Games to Market and the Cost...

That's where Employee Rights and Laws really protect the workers from big Corporations exploiting the workers and being able to just throw them away when they want. Contracts 'matter' - at least in the EU/UK where you aren't expected to 'hustle', aren't expected to go above and beyond your Contracted work hours (be exploited by the Corporation) and certainly not go above/beyond what you are contracted to do - but its a different culture in the US...

AI is a 'tool' and Humans are still needed to operate these tools. Even with AI 'art/assets' in a Game that is only in the 'game', a Human had to instruct the AI, a Human has to assess the results and a Human has to decide whether or not its 'acceptable' to go in 'their' game - they OWN all Art/Assets regardless

Slop is Slop whether Human created (there have been many 'Sloppy' games released over the decades, long before AI came along) and we, as Consumers, will still decide if their product is worth our time, worth spending money on.

Tools have replaced Humans - from the Machinery used in Agriculture/Textiles that kicked of the Industrial Revolution to the Computers of the modern day. CNC's and Robots have replaced many workers in factories, but they still require Human Operators, supervisors, maintainers etc.

AI may well replace some jobs in the Gaming Industry, but no Industry is exempt from tools coming in and being far more efficient, far more productive and obviously a lot more cost effective than Humans - hence they replace them. Its not Cost effective to spend 5yrs+ making a single game with a staff team of hundreds.

We get to play 'Games' because Tools have meant we have more leisure time and we created 'tools' to entertain us in our leisure time.

PSSR is using AI, just like DLSS Upscaling and DLSS Frame Gen - AI/ML Upscaliing is the highest quality and standard we all now want and expect from Upscaling.

If Slop is a game, that is the fault of a Human - even if that Slop was AI generated. A Human decided to put it in their game and allow it to release like that. IF AI generated, a Human was operating that tool, instructing it and then should have checked and/or amended the results BEFORE using them. Its NOT AI's fault Slop gets in a Game, its Human Error, a Humans fault.

A bad workman will blame the tools!

@get2sammyb How do you know the Artist didn't intend or want their game to look like that but had to dumb it down - including the lighting and more 'blur' on the character due to the Hardware limitations.

These 'games' are trying for a 'realistic' look, but are limited by hardware. The 'look' of a game maybe just the way the Artist was willing to compromise on their vision, the concessions they had to make to get their game 'running' at reasonable frame rates on modern Hardware, and would have looked like this had they had the Hardware to run it like this.

Many Games that have existed over many years, multiple generations have seen similar changes - Kratos for example because the newer Generations have allowed Devs to get 'closer' to their vision. Goldeneye (N64) tried to get as close to the Actors likeness with the limitations of the N64 restricting them yet nowadays Keanu Reeves or Norman Reedus look far more 'Human'. I bet Rare's artistic vision for Goldeneye would look very different if made today...

AI is still a TOOL - I think that Devs should be able to decide if they think that DLSS 5 is getting closer to their Vision or NOT and choose to allow it. You as the gsmer should ALSO have the choice to use it or not - much like you have a choice to use AI upscaling or AI frame Generation - both AI, both introduced by nVidia and now the standard that other AI (inc PSSR) are chasing...

Why would PC gamers want to buy a PS5 just to play a few games? The vast majority of games will be bought and played on their preferred Platform which no doubt beats a Console on Frame Rates and/or Graphical quality. Why spend that much money on hardware that's nothing but a dust collector as they wait months and months for the 'next' Exclusive they want to play - all the other games they play are on PC.

Last gen, you could just buy a PS4 for less than £300 for the Exclusives but Consoles aren't that cheap anymore and on top of that, they still expect you to pay a Sub fee to ulock the full range of Content and Features available, have a monopoly on the Digital storefront and generally higher Game prices too.

I can totally understand that people don't want to spend £500+ on Hardware, £70 for the game and maybe an additional £120+ on PS+ Essential over the next 2yrs. Even if you don't need or want to Sub to PS+ for the features (not just the Online Content and Social Gaming), that's still a LOT of money - so no wonder they would rather 'miss out' on playing a few games so Sony get 'NOTHING' than pay them.

They could still release on PC in 6-12months after releasing on PS5 - it won't hurt Sony - anyone wanting a PS5 to play, wanting to play first/earlier etc would have bought one and so its getting money from those gamers that otherwise would NOT be contributing to Sony's revenue. The only people it 'hurts' are Sony Fanboys who hate the fact that others will get to enjoy games they can...

Sell consoles at a reduced profit margin more like and use Exclusives to make gamers buy their hardware and 'lock' them into their Store, their Subscription service required for Online Social gaming and to unlock the full library of games, their ecosystem and giving them a Monopoly on their hardware...

Fanboys will defend this anti-consumer practice though and 'justify' why a big corporation should continue to get away with this...

@Pandalulz It may have a 'custom' chip but it will still be an AMD CPU and GPU and I bet it will be no different from many other 'AMD' PC's with Windows OS - just like RoG Xbox Ally vs Lenovo Go or MSi Claw.

Sony's games are sold through Steam and run through the Steam App and linked to your Steam Account - regardless of the Hardware and the OS is generally Windows (Microsoft owned) unless you limit it to Steam OS ONLY which would impact Windows PC users and PC users have a wide range of CPU's from AMD, let alone intel.

Just because your 'installed' games can all be collected and 'launched' from the Xbox FSE, if you launch a Steam game, it launches Steam so is still playing through Steam on your Steam account - not on Xbox!!!

@datamonkey Its NOT bought via 'Xbox' at all - its bought via Steam on Steam and runs through Steam like it does on a MS Windows PC.

PC's and Xbox both have CPU, GPU, RAM etc and a Microsoft OS - Steam is an App that's running on MS Windows PC (unless you are using their SteamDeck which runs Steam OS but still has a ProtonLayer to emulate Windows as the games are built for Windows PC). The games are bought on Steam, run through the Steam App and are added to your Steam Account - its a '3rd Party' Platform on Microsoft Windows PC, just like Epic or Battlenet. You load into 'Steam' when you launch a Steam Game or App and the Steam Store is NOT available through Xbox.

If you want to 'buy' games - even on a RoG 'Xbox' Ally, you can buy from Xbox (and the Xbox FSE is solely linked to the MS store so can't even find Sony games to buy) or you leave the Xbox/Windows to go to Steam to check out what games they have for sale. Steam doesn't sell the 'Xbox' versions of Xbox games, it sells Steam locked versions requiring Steam accounts and play through Steam.

Steam and Xbox on PC are two 'seaparate' Platforms - like Sony and Xbox Consoles are. Just because they share the SAME Hardware and OS/API's so Software runs properly on that Hardware, you don't get the PS, Steam, Epic or other platform versions buy buying Xbox games on Xbox and just because Steam maybe on an 'Xbox' branded PC, isn't suddenly going to affect Steams Store and purchasing through it...

Block a Windows PC version of a Game that's sold through Steam from running through Steam on a 'Windows' Xbox PC doesn't seem possible to me.

Just because its 'running' on a Box thats branded as 'Xbox' - like the RoG Xbox Ally handhelds, it still runs through the Steam App, through your Steam account and not your Xbox account.

If you 'block' them, you'll probably end up blocking them on ALL PC's because the Windows OS and Steam App those games released on would be affected regardless of the 'brand' on the box. It would be like trying to block them from running on Asus built PC's but work on Lenovo and MSi...

@Fishmasterflex96 And that's the issue in my eyes - the fact that Exclusives are used to sell Hardware and big corporations know this so its forcing Consumers to buy 'Hardware' just for a few games instead of buying hardware based on Specs, costs, preferrences, aesthetics, etc, etc. You wouldn't buy 3 different Bluray players just so you could watch all the movies or diffferent CD players because different publishers want you to buy 'their' Hardware.

Hardware should be bought because you as a Consumer chose to buy it on its own merit, not forced to buy just to play a few games not available elsewhere. I don't have an issue with them releasing games up to a year early, timed exclusivity, as a bonus for those that chose their hardware, but I do think they should release on every platform so ALL gamers can enjoy.

I also think its pathetic that some gamers need 'exclusives' to justify their hardware purchase and would be very angry/upset that other gamers would get to play the SAME games they enjoy - maybe its fear that they'll get a 'better' experience on PC with higher Graphical settings and frame rates...

No body should have to buy 3 or 4 different boxes, each with a CPU, GPU and RAM capable of playing EVERY game released, but won't get every game because some Publishers want to force you to buy their Hardware or miss out on their games...

Games are costing more and more to make and taking much longer too - its not the 'same' situation it was several generations ago. Studio's like Naughty Dog barely release 'new' games these days yet on PS3, you'd get a new game every couple of years - Uncharte 1-3 and Last of Us all released on that gen. We also had several Killzone games from Guerilla and several Infamous games from SuckerPunch - now we are lucky to get 1 game a generation from these Studios.

Console numbers aren't growing either so why not release on PC to maximise revenue? They don't have to release Day and Date but could release a year later when that game is no longer selling Hardware, is 'yesterdays' news and not selling games either anymore as PS gamers that wanted to buy it, already have...

I doubt it would hurt Console sales much, if anything at all because the games would still be 'exclusive' on Console for a period of time, still be built and optimised specifically for Playstation Hardware etc and ported to PC at a later date to be sold to gamers who aren't buying a Playstation anyway - its money from gamers that Sony wouldn't have got ANY money from whilst Sony Gamers still get Games to justify their Hardware purchase...

For someone that only has a few hours to game and ONLY has a Playstation, surely they'd prefer to be able to play whatever game they wanted including games made by Nintendo (Mario, Zelda etc) so they don't have to buy a Switch?

If you are buying Hardware solely because of Exclusives, I think that's a problem - you shouldn't be spending £400+ on Hardware just because of exclusive software. Software should be universal and you buy Hardware because you prefer the UI, the OS, the cost for its specs, the aesthetics, the controller, the services it offers etc.

As a 'gamer' you should want and expect all games on whatever hardware you choose, not expect to miss out on some of the games release each year because you didn't choose a certain box with a certain brand on it that still has a CPU, GPU, RAM and storage like the box you chose, miss out because you can't afford or justify owning multiple boxes that could play all games if devs/publishers wanted to.

They even know that 'exclusives' are there to sell Consoles - that's anti-consumer and purely beneficial to big corporations, wanting to 'lock you' in to their ecosystem and make as much money off of you from their store which they have a monopoly on and keeping Content/Features behind a Subscription Paywall so you have to keep paying them every month after buying their Hardware to keep playing some of the games you may have bought. Stop paying PS+ for example and some of the Games you paid £70 to play are now not playable at all until you pay Sony. Exclusives are used to trap you into that and they can control what games you get access to and can even censor them if they choose.

Each to their own, but in 2026, I think that Gamers should expect better, should demand better and want ALL gamers to have access to ALL games regardless of Hardware choice.

@GamingGod Real Gamers like ALL Games and want to play ALL games on their Favourite Hardware, not have to buy multiple Hardware to play ALL games. Fanboys want Exclusives to justify their Hardware, to make their favourite Hardware the #1 best seller and get angry/annoyed that 1st party games are playable by Gamers on OTHER hardware, that they are available to play by Gamers on their favourite hardware too that's different from their hardware...

That's the difference - true gamers want ALL games available to ALL gamers on ALL Hardware, fanboys want Exclusives for their Hardware and get upset/angry if those games are released on other platforms so other gamers get to play and enjoy them too...

How can you NOT see that, there is a big difference between a Gamer loving ALL Games and wanting them ALL available on EVERY platform so EVERY gamer can play and enjoy them too - a fanboy may enjoy games but want 'exclusives' for their Hardware to justify their Hardware choice and get Angry/upset if those games are made available to gamers on other Platforms. Why do you care that other gamers get to enjoy the same games you do?

I think Halo should release on Playstation - if not Day 1, then certainly within the first year of release so that EVERY gamer can get to play it and enjoy it to. At most, these games should be exclusive for a period of time as a 'bonus' for buying that hardware, but mostly so the Devs can focus on that Platform first instead of trying to work on multiple simultaneously. Its got to be easier to port a stable and optimised version to other platforms than trying to get all done simultaneously - although if they can, that's even better as Halo would benefit from having as many Gamers in its Multi-player lobbies as possible for the best Match-making and ping - something Gamers should care about MORE than Exclusivity and/or Hardware Sales charts...

Halo may have started on Xbox, where its fans may be, but that doesn't mean I think that's where it should stay and not allow other gamers to become fans, to enjoy that game too - same with Gears or Fable. MS would benefit by having more 'fans' of their IP's just like I think Sony should release their games to make more fans of their Games and IPs and maybe become as popular as GTA or Minecraft or CoD because EVERY gamer can become a fan of that IP/Game, not just the ones who bought a box with a specific Brand on it...

@nomither6 I'd agree those eras of Gaming were some of the best - but that was not really down to 'exclusives' as much as the combination of factors that contributed.

The games were great and plentiful, relatively short development times of a few years and plenty willing to make something 'new' - so many great new IP's with well written stories. Console Hardware was also cheap and affordable compared to PC so it was a lot easier to own multiple Consoles and still cost less than a decent gaming PC. Because the development times were shorter, there was also more Exclusives - you weren't paying £500+ 1-2 exclusives a year, but less than £300 and getting 4-5 exclusives a year so they weren't dust collectors.

It was a different time back then but I do think that the industry should 'evolve' and I think Exclusivity shouldn't exist in 2026 - at least not full exclusivity and think 'timed' exclusivity of First Party ONLY software is acceptable. I'm not saying that EVERY game should release day/date everywhere, but nothing should be 'permanently' exclusive.

This Generation of 'Console' gaming has been Garbage - Sony's first party releases haven't really been that numerous - relying a LOT on remasters to bulk out their Releases and Xbox, whilst it now has games, you don't need the Console so many haven't bought the hardware. Its not 'Dead' though as Xbox is NOT just the Console, its ALL of MS's Gaming and as its bigger than Sony and Nintendo with more Studios and Games now, its not 'dead' at all. Xbox is on Cloud, Xbox is on PC and built into Windows so that may have 'killed' the Xbox Console Hardware, but is bigger and stronger than it ever was as its ALL their Studio's, IP's and platforms, all of MS's Gaming division.

Again I go back to that 'Fanboy' mentality, that blinkered Console ONLY mentality where 'PC' doesn't really exist, its just about Console vs Console, my box is better than your box, my exclusives are better than your exclusives, my console is more popular than yours because sales charts say so. I don't care about the box, I care about the games and I'm OK with MS releasing their games on Playstation, being day/date on PC etc.

A decade ago, when Xbox merged with Windows and all games released day/date on PC, everyone said that there was NO reason to buy an Xbox (other than preference/price) and now they wonder why its not selling like Playstation because gamers aren't forced to buy it for Exclusive Games like they had been in previous generations - It still 'sells' Millions despite not being required so it must be some peoples 'preference' to play on that Hardware instead of Cloud or PC!!

@GamingGod Fanboys just buy their favourite console and demand Exclusives for it, that those games can't be released for OTHER gamers to enjoy and get really upset if their Console isn't the #1 best selling console, defending both their decision to buy that Console and the Company's decision to keep their games away from other Gamers.

Real Gamers don't care about Exclusives, they care about games and are more likely to be annoyed that some of the games they want to play are ONLY available on certain Hardware that they are 'forced' to buy because they want to play that game. They may have multiple Hardware devices to play ALL the games but several of them are 'dust' collectors for the majority of the year as they are ONLY used to play the 1 or 2 exclusives as they play the vast majority of games on their 'preferred' platform that may also deliver the highest Frame Rates and/or graphical quality. PC gamers may only buy a PS5 to play the few games Sony release that interest them.

Casuals don't really care about Exclusives and will likely buy the Hardware that's cheapest and still allows them to play the multi-platform games they enjoy. They perhaps won't buy a 'new' Playstation at launch, but instead wait until they can pick one up used or cheap in a sale and as Casuals will also buy based on aesthetic, cost, controller design, UI and even familiarity based on what platform they've gamed on before.

Fanboys are those that want exclusives and defend the big corporation for gatekeeping those and keeping them 'exclusive' to their cheap box, defend them from making those games available to ALL gamers because they want to be playing on the 'best selling' Console and terrified that if they released those games everywhere, their favourite brand won't be the best selling Hardware.

Gamers care about GAMES and not the Hardware - they'd rather all the games would be Cross-platform (to play with other gamers regardless of their preference for Hardware) and multi-platform so ALL gamers get to play and enjoy the games - certainly don't get annoyed/upset that gamers on other platforms will also get to enjoy the games they enjoy too - unlike Fanboys!!