As Ryall states, its perhaps too early to commit to ANY platform(s) yet and no point 'promising' to release on platforms that may not be 'relevant' or 'cost effective' to port to.
It's up to MS and/or any 'licencing' agreement they may have with the IP holder. It makes much more sense for Playstation gamers to 'expect' ALL Bethesda new games to be Exclusive until they are 'confirmed' to be on PS too.
No-one expects Sony to release their 1st party games on Xbox - regardless of whether they 'own' IP's or Licence them (like Spider-Man or MLB). MLB 'forced' Sony to release its MLB games on Xbox or lose the Licence.
MS clearly stated that Zenimax purchase was about bringing Great 'exclusives' to Xbox, and whilst they stated they would continue to 'support' ALL games currently on PS, any 'new' release would be assessed on a Case by Case basis. Arkane are now an Xbox owned Studio, like Naughty Dog or Insomniac are now owned by Sony and 1st Party.
From Koticks perspective, this years game was expected to be MS's issue - not a big new AAA annual release but only a DLC - the 'first time' ABK would miss its annual Cash Cow. Then we had both the CMA and FTC putting spanners in the works and maybe threw the whole deal into 'jeopardy' and so Kotick insisted on a 'Full' release just in case ABK remained in 'full' control.
It is a 'disappointing' campaign, its MP is playing the Nostalgia Card and Zombies is OK but not worth the asking price alone. Coupled with the aggressive monetisation of Multi-player more befitting the F2P model, its not a great 'buy' these days...
With layoffs, that either 'limits' the ambition, 'extends' the time needed or a combination of both. What signs are there that the relatively short delay will help them suddenly realise their ambition for this big finale they had planned when they have lost a lot of the fanbase limiting the budget, lost a chunk of their staff as well and given the timescape, Putting 'something' together to conclude their game to the 'few' that will play it compared to Destiny's heights.
I stopped buying my Son 'games' for Christmas/Birthdays over 10yrs ago now. He would much prefer to have 'credit' on his account to take advantage of Digital sales and/or buy DLC/MTX etc in games he was 'enjoying'.
That way he could choose whether he would rather have 1 new Big AAA game, several older AAA sale games, Indies, DLC/MTX etc or combination of these. I think he worked out early that 'money/credit' was better as that gave him the option to choose what he wanted, when he wanted instead of trying to pick something that he might not want by Christmas too...
Considering the Price games have gone up to as well as ALL the other options to fill our gaming time (Sub services, Backwards Compatibility and Sale), in a 'cost of living' crises, a game has to be something 'special' or at least a well known and beloved IP.
This looked like a game of Style over Substance - some generic plot with generic characters and generic game-play wrapped in a shiny UE5 aesthetic with lots of shiny/bright particle effects to 'wow'. Nothing really that made me think it was worth buying at launch, something to pick up maybe in some bargain bin sale or maybe try it on EA Play/PS+/Game Pass when it eventually comes to these sub services.
Even without Sub services, I wouldn't have bought this at launch with all the other great games we have seen - I couldn't afford to buy 'every' game and still pay bills, buy food etc etc. I'd rather spend £70 on buying several older games now on sale I missed than pay the 'it's a new release tax' to play it in the first 'months' of release when it will be much less in 6-12months with more content and possibly better performance due to patches...
If it doesn't sell enough, that tells me they were either asking far too much or not offering what people wanted/expect for that price - that there was better options and/or better value elsewhere. It's also not exactly 'old' either and games can sell for years and years. Ubisoft would often drop prices quickly to find the price point the game will sell at consistently enough to bring in revenue when games aren't selling and others don't drop prices at all because they keep selling at a higher price....
Of course people know Sega have a lot of great IP's and Potential, but the more you keep squandering that 'potential' with games you do make, the more wolves will be attracted...
If Sega were in a Strong position, that keeps many wolves from trying to buy, and why sell if those IP's were working for you....
I think the key here is for Sega to start trying to use those IP's to realise that 'Potential' all Gamers WANT from those IP's so that they 'sell' and then Sega would be in a stronger position...
As a £20-£30 DLC to MW2, this wouldn't be that bad. Zombies could well be a Warzone option - alongside BR & DMZ and the Campaign probably would be better served without the padding to set-up the next game. The MP maps and 'few' additional weapons would really suit a DLC bundle better (as they were surely meant to be) as they aren't 'new' at all...
Overall, Physical is likely to be down as this is the first Gen Playstation console without a disc drive so those owners have no choice to buy Physical and are limited to Digital only purchases.
If 30% of the PS hardware sales are the Digital Only version, that's 30% that won't be buying Physical at all. They may have bought 'some' Physical games even if Digital is their main choice with a Disc based PS5 - but Sales and cheaper new releases may have tempted them but now 'can't' so that's going to impact Physical purchases.
With so many 'Digital' Only releases too, its not surprising that Physical with more 'limited' releases and only available on 'select' hardware (PS5 Disc/Series X - as Series S/PS5 Digital/PC are 'digital only' platforms), its no surprise that it accounts for such a small sector these days
I guess its possible if they are targeting 4k/60 on a PS5 and could scale it down to 30fps and 1080p (or lower). It really depends on whether it was built in a way to scale across generations or not - no one thought RDR2 was a bad looking/playing game when it released - even if they 'could' scale it up for PS5.
If its built with features and/or certain ways, it may not be possible to Scale down. For example, if they rely on RT GI with 'no' traditional option for less capable hardware or rely on SSDs as fundamental to the game-play, then it won't release on last gen hardware. If there isn't enough of a market on old hardware, they won't scale it down for sales as they need to recoup costs too.
@Leonhart To you - and it may well be the 'best' of the trilogy - but I think the trilogy is average at best - not something I'd recommend. The second was pretty average 13yrs ago when it released.
If you enjoy - great but considering ALL the games I can play today on my PS5, Mafia 2 wouldn't be in my top 100 games. In other words, there are MANY games I'd rather spend my gaming time playing - even if some of those cost money. I'd rather buy some games than play Mafia 2 for 'free' on PS+.
It may not be 'terrible' but there are MANY better games, many that I'd rather spend time playing - some of which are in my backlog so I am not desperate enough, have so few games in my Library or wish list etc, that Mafia 2 is the 'best' use of my gaming time...
Nowt here of interest to me. Never liked Dragon Ball, Aliens was very mediocre when I played on Game Pass and Mafia 2 was 'OK' 13yrs ago from my perspective so nothing I'm looking forward, let alone excited to play...
CoD Ghosts had a great campaign and even the multiplayer modes were great too.
The problem was that the series hadn't tried to evolve and was still the 'same' game reskinned, same movement, same modes, same structure and people were 'tired' of it. Games like Titanfall were showing 'Advanced' movement.
The Multiplayer too wasn't helped by such a split in the communities. The game was split on Consoles between those on PS3 and those 'few' who bought the game on PS4 in the first few months. On XB1, that was perhaps worse with fewer hardware sales - no multi-platform MP back then.
It was a cross generation game with the community split across too many consoles and people were getting a bit fed up with what often felt like a reskinned MP bolted on to a 'similar' campaign that no longer was 'shocking' or really doing anything that new with the Campaign...
But then we got Advanced Warfare and the run of Advanced Movement games before the Community wanted CoD to return to Boots on the Ground - even had to bring back Modern Warfare to steady a sinking ship...
To be honest, I stopped 'supporting' Bungie and Destiny years ago - I voted with my Wallet at the direction and monetisation methods they were utilising before they left Activision so I can appreciate why many feel this may be the 'final nail' in the Coffin from their perspective.
It already seemed to me that the 'paid' for content wasn't given the time, the attention etc as much as the Eververse and MTX Cosmetics - often 'better' than the Rewards offered from the highest tier paid for content (Raid Rewards) and the fact that they 'sell' you all the 'great' gear you can earn, only to basically take it away the following DLC so you have to 'grind' again and again...
I don't know if this is 'just' about the Layoffs, but the whole 'news' - don't feel like the Final Shape will now be worth the Price (reduced in quality, content etc with 'fewer' working on it) and after the last DLC was disappointing - this is a combination of factors that was the tipping point for them...
I lost interest in Destiny before they left Activision and the game went Free to Play. I was already beginning to get seriously annoyed with the eververse store and putting the 'best' Cosmetics behind a ridiculously high paywall instead of 'earning' the best cosmetics from playing content I 'PAID' for, them making stuff I had grinded for 'obsolete/useless' to force you to 'grind' etc when the Content/Story never really seemed to have the same effort put into it as the Eververse store...
@Flaming_Kaiser Great - Consoles 'suit' you the best. However if you gamed on PC, you wouldn't buy a Playstation if ALL their games released day/date on PC - its pointless...
Playstation doesn't really give you a choice - its buy Playstation or 'miss out' - at least until they bring it to PC. With MS, you have so many choices - from using whatever hardware you may have and stream it for a small monthly fee with many other games also playable for that tiny fee - great if you can't afford or justify spending hundreds on Hardware just to play game(s) - all the way up to having the 'best' PC set-up money can buy - you don't NEED an Xbox Console or have to miss out, don't need to go out and buy a Series S/X at all or even 'buy' the game these days....
Also if you have a 'great' PC, you are not forced to spend hundreds to buy a Console or 'miss out' until MS release it on their preferred platform. There is an 'option' to suit any preference/budget. Even Steam Deck console gamers for example don't need a Series S/X or 'miss out', they can play Day 1.
If you want the Ease of Plug & Play that Consoles offer - MS still has the Series S or X as two different tiers. Those 'options' are still there of course - Series X is the Equivalent to the PS5 in that regard. But with Sony, Consoles are not an 'option' - its the ONLY choice to play Sony games day/date. Someone with a XB1S, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop etc doesn't 'need' to buy a Series S/X to play Forza Motorsport but a PS4, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop gamer will need to buy a PS5 for Spider-Man 2.
Sony's 'ecosystem' is literally just the Console. MS's is the 'PC/Cloud/Xbox' of which the Console is just 1 option - which may be the 'best' option for some - hence they'll buy, but for others, they may 'prefer' the other options as it suits them, their budget, their preferences etc the best...
@Cikajovazmaj Again - PC gaming does not necessarily mean those sat at a 'Desktop' with at least a RTX 30 series or equivalent AMD GPU. Steam Deck is 'not' a PC, its a Console - but Steam is 'PC' so therefore comes under the PC umbrella. PC has Xbox Store and Game Pass too of course - but PC can also be a RoG Ally for example or any of the other Windows Handheld gaming devices on the market - maybe better than a Console for those who spend most of their Gaming time on the Go...
Even a cheap Student Laptop with no separate GPU can be used to play games. Cheaper than a Series S with a screen - as long as it has wifi and a Browser, you can play on Game Pass Cloud. I know its 'not' the best way to play, Series S has its advantages over Cloud, Series X - advantages over Series S and high end PC's advantages over all the rest.
Point is, if you wanted to play Starfield, Forza, Fable, Perfect Dark etc the DAY they release but can't afford (or justify) buying a Series S/X, you can still play on some device - even if its just your Mobile Phone or via a browser on your 'old' laptop/PC. Not everyone cares about 4k or even use Game mode on their TV so Cloud may feel much better, less lag than they are used too...
@Northern_munkey ALLM - Auto Low Latency Mode - basically switches a TV into its 'Low Latency' (often called Game mode) automatically. It depends on whether you prefer lowest input latency because it often turns off some of the TV's own built in Picture Processing to save time, therefore reduce lag, before its displayed for you to see. Some find it a bit 'Raw' and would rather have the TV's Picture Processing (movie mode for example).
VRR is Variable Refresh Rate and is useful too. If you are bothered by stutter or Screen Tearing when frame rates drop, this is essential. Without it, a TV refreshes 60 times a second (generally - although TV's are now using 120hz panels with VRR enabled sets) so if the frame rate drops, its 'out of sync with the TV leading to a stutter or screen tear. VRR will adjust the TV to match the Frame Rate so it refreshes with every frame - at least for Frame Rates above 48fps on PS5 to so it at least looks smoother and/or cleaner.
Both are recommended for Gamers and if you do get a 120hz VRR display for example, you can play games like R&C, Spider-Man 2 etc at 40fps Quality mode instead of 30fps. 40fps is exactly mid-way between 30 and 60fps. I'd never advise or tell people how to spend their money so I'll leave it to you to decide if its worth it to you - but all I'll say is that these are 'Gaming' Features of modern TV's and Modern Consoles (at least the Series S/X and PS5) are able to utilise those so I would highly recommend these features to ANY gamer and let them decide if its worth it to them...
@Fiendish-Beaver I know a PC maybe the most expensive option - if you want to have the best hardware - but you are assuming that people will need to invest in a PC to play. Some may have a decent enough PC that can match a Series S - only have a 1080p monitor anyway. Even if their PC can't play games natively, they don't have to 'invest' in CPU's, GPU's or RAM to play, they can play via Cloud.
Yes Cloud may not be the 'best' way to play, but it maybe better than their hardware would run it natively, if at all. I can play Starfield on a Student Laptop/PC for a LOT less money than it would cost to Buy a PS5/Series X Console. I can play Starfield on my XB1S without having to go out and buy a Series S/X for example but PS4 gamers will have to upgrade to play Spider-Man 2.
You don't 'need' an Xbox Console to play day/date - Steam Deck, RoG Ally and numerous other 'Handheld' options exist. So even if you can't buy a $1000+ PC (Laptop or Desktop), there are still cheaper options. The Consoles may well give the 'best bang for buck' upfront price for performance, but PC's can be upgraded as and when you want, games are cheaper too and you can save money on not having to pay to play online too.
'PC' could be an 'expensive' gaming Rig but also a handheld 'Console' like device these days. You also have the fact that 'everyone' these days 'owns' a device they could play games on via the Cloud too.
The 'hardcore' gamers may well already have a PC gaming rig - whether its 'better' than Series X or not, it makes sense to upgrade that than spend $500 on a Console. There is so much choice for gamers of ALL budgets - from those that can't afford to buy 'hardware' specifically at the moment all the way up to the most hardcore/affluent gamers.
Yes a Console provides a certain tier of quality - but its a 'choice' with MS. I can play Starfield on my RoG Ally anywhere, on my 3080ti Gaming Laptop too, on any PC regardless of its 'gaming' specs, on my XB1X or S, on my Samsung Mobile etc - I don't have to play ONLY on Series X.
Some really don't care about 4k - don't have 4k Displays so their 'hardware' is more than adequate to play Starfield - so why 'buy' a Console? There is 'options' for everyone - whatever 'budget' they have. Cloud may not be the 'best' way, but for some, it enables them to play at a cost they can afford/justify. No pressure to buy ANY Console - its OPTIONAL
Things like PS+ Subscriptions and First Party games like Spider-Man 2 are ONLY available on Playstation. If you want to play SM2 the day it releases, you'll need to own a Playstation - so it pushes Sales of that Console.
Game Pass and Starfield are NOT exclusive to Xbox Consoles. You do NOT need an Xbox to play Starfield or Subscribe to Game Pass to play it day/date. In fact you can play it Day 1 on Cloud for example and its NOT even a Console Exclusive as it can be played on a Steam Deck.
The Series Console is purely 'optional' hardware for Microsoft. Series S is the 'entry' hardware tier with Series X offering a comparable 'premium' Gaming tier to PS5 - but Cloud is still the cheapest entry tier and PC's can offer the 'highest' tier, well above what PS5 is able to offer if you have the budget to spend.
Point is, Sony should continue to Sell more Hardware - especially as it looks like ABK games won't be 'exclusive' and they aren't that 'prolific' either. It may still make more sense for MANY gamers to buy a Playstation because ONLY Playstation will have 'exclusives' as ALL of MS's Games, if you want to play them, will be available on PC (inc Handhelds like RoG Ally) or Cloud so you don't 'need' an Xbox. PC & Playstation for example could be all you need and not 'miss out' on ANY MS exclusives.
If by 'market position', its just the 'console' ecosystem - not counting any who may also be in that Ecosystem and therefore not buying a Console for the sake of it, then of course releasing ALL your Exclusives on PC/Cloud is going to negatively impact. As stated, if you want to play Starfield, Forza, Perfect Dark, Fable etc - you don't 'NEED' an Xbox and PC gamers who may buy a PS5 to play Spider-Man 2, ain't buying an Xbox ever again...
I enjoyed Alan Wake and its big Stephen King inspired Story on the 360 - also liked American Nightmare too but didn't like Quantum Break or Control so I am not convinced by this - looks good but something is telling me to wait on this....
The longer it goes on, the less likely it will be successful enough to warrant supporting or even continuing to make more games in the future. The escalating costs of development will make it tougher to recoup that...
Personally, I couldn't care less - it was never on my Radar, never appealed to me, and I hated the ship combat it Assassins Creed (Black Flag, Origins, Odyssey etc) so a game based around that doesn't interest me at all. Each to their own of course and if you are 'excited' by this, maybe eventually you'll get to play it - until Ubisoft decides to close it down!
There is nothing to say that Digital won't 'preserve' games in the future. Discs these days are just a delivery mechanism to get the 'software' to the Customer so they can install it on their hardware to play - no different from the internet.
However, Discs also need to be manufactured and distributed, as well as contain the 'earliest' version of the code - often requiring Day 1 patches and/or internet connection to install the rest of the game as its too big to be all on disc.
So what are you 'preserving' these days? half a game? the broken -pre-day 1 experience? Something that is 'unplayable' and certainly not the game it will end up becoming once Devs have patched and added extra content/modes/features etc 'post release'.
There are many games over the past few years I've bought on Disc - yet I wouldn't want to play what's on the Disc today. Perhaps one of the best examples is Cyberpunk 2077 - the game on disc was AWFUL, even the day 1 patches wouldn't help and its a completely different game to the version on Digital stores today...
Licences too 'expire'. If EVERY game was Preserved, Spider-Man would soon be playable on Xbox for certain - albeit the ABK Spider-Man games that 'could' be remade/remastered. However, licences - whether music, brands (like Ford, Mercedes etc in car games) or IP's are often licenced for the 'life' of Specific Hardware - like PS3 or Xbox 360 or for a Duration (like 5-10yrs) because they don't expect you to 'keep' playing those 'OLD' games on new Hardware when 'newer' games exist in the same genre/IP and/or not willing to pay for Licences when Sales won't cover the costs.
Not 'every' game deserves to be preserved in my opinion. Should every version of Fifa ever released be preserved? What about shovelware games for trophy score? What about awful games like Life of Black Tiger?
I have no issue with certain games being preserved - especially those that had a major impact in the world of Gaming. Pac Man for example had a big impact but not 'every' version or copycat clone that came out deserves to be 'preserved' in my opinion...
Its probably so that ONLY Sony can make/sell a drive and market it at whatever price they want knowing that the ONLY option for consumers is to buy 'their' Hardware or miss out.
Sony will want you to buy their TV's too to get the 'most' out of Playstation...
@Korgon All I am saying is that people will have different perspectives on what they consider to be good/bad value. Some will be 'fine' with what they get for their money and others will expect 'more'.
I remember when games would have a 8hr+ Single Player, an extensive Online Multi-player Suite etc for around £40 - now it seems that you'll get an 8hr game for £70 and they'll sell a Multi-player suite separately for example. Instead of making a bigger game, the Games seem to be getting smaller, shorter - albeit 'prettier' yet charging more.
Games aren't 'better' than 10yrs ago either - as RE4, Dead Space and Quake 2 are some of the highest rated 'releases' this year - games that are 'over' 10yrs Old that still stand-up today. The Quality of the writing, the Game-play etc stands up.
Anyway, If you have £70 to spend on gaming, some may choose to buy this at launch - pay a high 'premium' just because its 'new', Pay a Premium to be one of the 'first' to play. This is when Games are at their 'worst' value for a Gamer as the price is at its highest, the game is generally at its worst (for a Consumer as it requires patches/fixes/optimisation to iron out any bugs - even if it releases in a great state) and lowest Content too - with 'promises' of Post release content to come. Therefore, when its half price in a sale, you get a 'better,bigger' game for less - much 'better' value for money.
You may place a 'higher' value on games to be one of the first to experience it, the FOMO effect pushes you to pay that Premium to play the 'best' new Release this week for example, but another may decide to buy it when its in a sale because they can get a LOT more Games, a lot more entertainment etc for a lot less.
Why spend £70 on a single game when you could spend £10 on a Sub Service and play numerous games, buy several superb games in a sale etc and get much better 'value' for your money. It doesn't matter how long/short SM2 is, it will be 'better' value and soon be on PS+ anyway.
Point is that Value is 'relative' to an individual and therefore can't be argued. As I said, I can't argue with you about the Value of SM2 in reality because its personal to you, just as you can't really argue that others may get more 'value' from their £70 to them so think SM2 isn't great value either.
@Korgon Oh and whilst I am trying to be 'objective' and say that Value is totally relative to the individual, their preferences, budget etc I can see your point. I don't necessarily believe that a 100hr+ game is better value than a 15-20hr game - as I said, I'd rather play a 15-20hr 'great' game than a 100+ hr Mediocre broken Mess, filled with repetitive Game-play, repeated repetitive Side Quests, bland characters with a predictable and/or generic plot.
Therefore you have to look at each game on a game by game basis. I know that if I had a 'limited' budget and could only buy 'new' games once every month or two, then I'd rather buy a 'great' 100hr+ game that will see me through at least until I can buy something else, than buy something I'll be finished with in a weekend and then have little/nothing to play until I can afford another game, wait for 'short' games to drop in price so I could buy several games to see me through.
Personally, I don't believe ANY game is worth $50+ just to play it in the first few months or so of release. The Stories, Game-play loops etc are NO better - even if they 'look' more realistic. I'd rather play Uncharted 2 than U4 again and much prefer AC2 to AC:Valhalla. And until the price went up, I was buying 'new' games for £40-45 at most and £65-70 for Special Collectors editions with DLC bonuses, Steelbook cases, Artbooks, Soundtracks etc so £65-70 (as they are in the UK) for a 'standard' release is quite a jump up for what? Better Graphics? We had that with the PS4 over PS3 too but didn't have to pay £10 more for the PS4 version because it offered the full 1080p with higher quality visual settings...
That's like charging nVidia RTX series an extra £10 over AMD users because they can play games at higher Graphical settings/performance thanks to its Cores specifically for RT, AI and DLSS.
@Korgon As I tried to point out, its all relative. You may think that paying $70 for 20hrs is great value to you but for another person who spent weeks saving their Pocket Money to buy the game and finish it over a weekend somewhat poor value when they could have bought a game that would last them 'months' so they can save money for their 'next' game.
They may be better off picking up Cyberpunk now in a sale and playing that, wait for Spider-Man 2 to crop up in a sale as that will be 'even' better Value but right now, its not 'worth' $70 because they can get a LOT more games for that money.
If you can only buy a 'new' game a month, buying a game and beating it in a few days may feel like its not great 'value' as they have 'nothing' to play until 'next' month now but could have bought several games or even just 1 game that will see them through to their 'next' game.
Maybe if you look at Sub services too (inc PS+ Extra), they have many 'great' high quality games to play for a much lower monthly cost - and games like God of War, Horizon:ZD, Last of Us, Uncharted, R&C, Returnal, Spider-Man & Miles Morales are of 'equal' Sony Quality so much better 'value' than buying Spider-Man 2 at launch when it will be on PS+ at some point and/or in a sale offering much better 'value' than it does today.
You are still paying more just to play it at launch - and with 'many' games, they update and/or patch the game - add more features, modes, content etc (like NG+, Performance modes etc), fix bugs and/or optimise it better to extract 'more' from the Hardware etc so that when you do buy it in a Sale, its a bigger, better and/or much more playable/fun/balanced experience so 'better' value as it also costs less...
@Korgon When $70 can buy you several great 'High Quality' 15-20hr games, then $70 for one, just because its 'new' maybe isn't great value to that person.
You can buy several 'Game of the Year' games in a sale that are arguably better now they have been patched, updated with extra content/features/modes instead for example which maybe even better Value to the Gamer.
Its relative to the individual and what they feel is the better use of the money for them...
'Value' is always relative to the individual so I don't necessarily agree with this. If someone feels that the Game is 'too short' or not enough content they 'want' for that price point, that is equally as valid a perspective.
Length itself isn't always a good metric as you can have 100's of hours worth of 'repetitive' game-play/quests etc just to pad out a 'mediocre' Campaign with bland characters and a very predictable and/or generic plot but a much shorter game exceeds expectation and delivers an experience you feel justified its price point.
Some games deliver on both Quality and Quantity too that make '8hr' games feel incredibly short, left with a feeling of 'is that it?' I expected 'more' for the price...', even if its 'Quality' cannot be faulted.
£70 is also going to feel expensive to some, and maybe pocket-money change to another. It really does depend on your Budget, how much free cash you can spend on games. If you have to save weeks to buy a Game at launch, that's going to be a different 'value' proposition to someone who could buy several 'new' games every week....
The price, coupled with some big discounts on the OG design in recent months really doesn't make the Slim an 'attractive' option - 3 years on from release when most 'hardcore' gamers already have a PS5.
Yes it maybe more 'profitable' for Sony to release a smaller design 3yrs on at/above the price they launched with, but once the OG designs are sold, then this is the ONLY option for those 'late comers' to the PS5.
If a 'slimmer' PS5 is still costing $500 (with a drive), I'd hate to think how much they would expect for a Pro with any 'meaningful' upgrade. I doubt you'll get 'native' 4k/60 when Some games are running at below 1080p using FSR or TAA to upsample to 4k and still not always hitting 60fps.
The 'only' reason to upgrade from an OG PS5 is really if the OG breaks down. It doesn't offer any other major benefits - unless you are really concerned about the Electric bill and want to reduce your consumption without reducing your game time.
@Jimboss If it wasn't, then why would Sony persist with the Practice knowing that they will sell Playstation Hardware because of CoD and 'extra' content, early access etc. You can argue it 'worked' for MS during the 360 era as they had DLC earlier too.
Of course there will be a portion of the CoD community that will play on their preferred Hardware or can't own multiple platforms so will 'miss out', but those deals will make CoD gamers buy a Playstation rather than 'miss out'. Buy an Xbox, not get content but still have to pay the same price, not going to get XP bonuses that help PS players rank up and unlock gear at a faster rate, not getting access to maps at the same time - advantages for PS gamers who can learn the Maps, unlock gear quicker etc.
The fact is it makes CoD a less attractive package on other Platforms when one has ealy/extra content for the same cost and splits the community too which isn't great for the Game/Community. Of course PS gamers are 'happy' because they benefit, but the majority are NOT.
I don't think anyone is surprised by this. Rebranded but ultimately the same game people 'expected' Fifa24 would be. The Rebrand hasn't really impacted this game in either a positive or negative.
Its Fifa23 with the usual minor tweaks you get year after year after year from EA.
In the past few years ABK have basically dried up on releases - considering the size and number of Studios across Activision and Blizzard. King don't release games on Console anyway.
Apart from some Crash/Spyro/Tony Hawkes remasters and the Annual CoD, they have only released Diablo 4, OW2.0 (more an update), Crash4 and Crash Team Rumble.
MS themselves got 'ridiculed' for a lack of Games despite acquiring several Studios in 2018 yet ABK had far more people and bigger Studios. The way ABK were ran under Kotick, I only saw one outcome - go under or be sold! Too reliant on CoD, putting all their eggs in one basket and stifling Creativity in order to churn out the same game year after year after year...
Sony have been the 'dominant' Console for at least the last decade and used the position to screw over Gamers on other Platforms in order to artificially boost the 'Playstation'. Extra Content/bonuses for PS only splits and angers communities of fans of an IP, forcing them to play on PS instead of their 'preferred' or even the 'best' Platform with the best graphics/performance - the PC. Having to play on PS5 at 60fps to get the best visuals or 120fps to get the best performance when their PC will offer 120fps+ at higher visual quality just to get 'early' access or some 'bonus' modes/cosmetics isn't great for the CoD community.
If this does put 'pressure' on Sony to do something - even though it seems they are not really 'losing' anything by the fact MS are aquiring ABK, still planning to release CoD etc for at least the next 10yrs and support it similar to how they support Minecraft (Mojang are still a 'multi-platform' Studio owned by MS), I just hope it means they don't double down on splitting Communities and invest in their OWN ecosystem, be more 'humble' instead of thinking they are a 'Premium' brand so command 'Premiums' when their products are no better than others - just given a bit more time to polish...
Well with ABK 'streaming' rights now with Ubisoft, that enables Netflix, Apple, Google etc as well as Sony of course, to have access to all ABK games to be available to those 'giants' too to help them set-up and compete with the 'established' giants of gaming.
That could mean the likes of CoD, Diablo, Overwatch, WoW, Crash, Spyro etc will end up on Netflix too to bolster their Streaming content and help them Establish themselves as a Gaming supplier/hub.
I don't subscribe to Extra or Premium and these games wouldn't convince me to Subscribe either. Alien: Isolation is perhaps the only game I'd actually want to play - if I didn't already own it. I'm sure I've seen it on sale for under £10.
Gotham Knights may well be one of the Newest and high profile releases, but it was also not a great game - maybe 'better' now than when it released in terms of playability, but that doesn't change some of the other issues - like story for example.
It might be worth 'trying' for 'free' if you already sub, but I'd rather keep the Sub fee in my account, maybe buy a game or two in a sale that I can play 'forever' instead.
Since every game now has to be installed on internal storage, it doesn't run from Disc at all, Physical is just a way of the Publisher/Dev to 'deliver' the Software to your Console - just like the internet is used to deliver the Software via downloading.
Games are either 'incomplete' due to limited 'disc' space or a buggy, broken mess that both require 'internet' to Download the rest of the Game and/or patches to play. The only reason you need the Disc after installation is to 'verify' you still own a valid licence to play.
If we look at 'next-gen' hardware, Physical is only really bought by PS5 (disc) and Series X owners as PS5 (Digital), Series S and PC owners all buy Digitally. A 'large' percentage of the Gaming community can't buy Physical anyway so they are only printing discs for the 'few' on PS5/Series X that want/prefer Physical - but a growing percentage are switching to Digital making Physical a much smaller percentage of gamers.
On top of all the extra costs involved to manufacture and distribute Physical, the market for them is shrinking and the Game on Disc can be 'very' different from the Game today - look at Cyberpunk and how that evolved since Launch - who'd want to 'preserve' that version that came on Disc?
@thefourfoldroot1 Well that's you. I prefer to be able to return to games as and when I want - whether I have 'finished' the main Story or not. Take Cyberpunk, I have owned it since launch but with Patches and now some upcoming DLC, I may want to return to it years later. A lot of games get updates, new content etc and reasons to return and/or reasons why I didn't finish them at the time.
As I said, I don't want to be restricted to playing a 'handful' of games everytime I turn my Console on. I don't always have 'hours' to reinstall games or move them, so I want to be able to turn my console on and be playing 'any' game I have within 'minutes' at the most.
Its not like the 'pre-XB1/PS4' era where EVERY game you owned could be accessed by simply putting the Cartridge/Disc into the hardware as it ran from that Disc - at most,, you'd get an update to install first. But as games run from internal Storage now and must be installed too, the amount of Storage is limiting the number of games you can access.
I also don't want to have to decide which games to move/delete every time I want to play something 'different' - whether its an 'old' game I own, some 'free' game from a Sub Service (like PS+) or a new game I've just bought.
@thefourfoldroot1 Because I don't want to spend hours reinstalling or transfering games across from an external HDD to play games I own when I want to play.
Yes you can ONLY play 1 game at a time, but I own more games than can fit on my SSD. Take Cyberpunk, I may not have played for months, but with new DLC, I may want to jump back. If I can only keep '5-8' games on the SSD, that limits what games I can play 'instantly' at any time out of my Collection with the rest either requiring reinstallation, updating etc before I can jump back in.
I may only play 1 game at a time, but I also don't want to be 'limited' as to what games I can just jump in and play quickly/easily to the select few games installed on the SSD despite owning others.
Disney acquired LucasArts and could have been a big Gaming Company by now if they had ambition in that direction.
As for a Monopoly, that would require so many Publishers to be bought. In Japan alone you have Sony, Nintendo, Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Sega, Capcom etc let alone Ubisoft, EA, TenCent, Embracer, Warner Bros etc as well - all Publishers/creators of Games so a long way to go to get down to 2 or 3 big companies with anyone owning the vast majority of IP's, Studio's etc. People need to know what a 'monopoly' is before they start claiming a monopolisation of the Industry.
That being said, I can see Disney being an attractive proposition for the right Company. Not only do you have some of the Biggest IP's in 'media' (Disney, Star Wars, Marvel etc) to create games for, you also have their TV/Movie expertise for their Games - whether they choose to make a TV series, Movie or use that expertise for more cinematic games, Motion Capture etc.
If Disney did buy EA, they could turn Mass Effect, Dead Space etc into TV/movies - much like Sony are doing with their Game IP's - Last of Us, Uncharted. Twisted Metal, R&C etc.
Personally I never liked these games and seemed a money making scheme to sell more junk peripherals and with billions of songs, almost a never ending list of tracks they could sell you - especially with some AI way of translating the music to the GH input style to save time and staff from doing that.
With MS taking over, Koticks days as Activision CEO are over and it would be up to MS to decide whether or not to resurrect GH, decide to change any plans (especially if they haven't 'publicly' been announced) etc. So I would wait until any official confirmation once under 'new' management.
Whether we get another GH with the Peripherals or not, time will tell. Rhythm based games don't seem 'overly' common these days and in a world where plastics, environment, sustainability etc are hot topics, I don't know that they will want to ship 'large' peripherals, but I won't say it will 'never' happen as we just don't know the future...
I thought the first game was 'OK' - nothing 'special' and had a LOT of what I would call typical of an 'Ubisoft Open World' game - towers to unlock the map, lots of filler side activities (backpacks, photos, side missions, enemy bases etc), repetitive 'puzzles' in the lab, boring instant fail 'stealth' and a reliance on QTE's. Most battles result in a similar structure of dodging until you can web sling somethiing to get a chance to attack the boss, repeat 3x and follow the QTE's to win.
It played well and Swinging was fun. Combat borrowed heavily from Arkham and Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (which also had great swinging) and so felt familiar and solid enough. Being a 'Sony' Game helped the final release deliver a 'solid' experience at launch that felt ready to release (Maybe the 'single' Platform helps too to ensure its polished) - which can't be said of other games but I felt like Insomniac took Ubisofts open world template and borrowed from Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (an influence on Batman's Combat) and wrapped it in a Spider-Man skin.
As such, I doubt I'll buy Spider-Man 2 at launch. I don't think any game is worth spending £70 just to play in the first months of release when I can wait until its cheaper in a sale. It would really have to be something special, a complete game changer to convince me to purchase sooner...
@BeerIsAwesome True - but things are certainly a lot different today. The infrastructure has improved as well as the market, the way more and more people are accessing their favourite media etc.
Its like saying Nintendo didn't really succeed with VR so shouldn't or won't reconsider VR ever again but things change. In the 90's, you'd never have thought that you could game with people all over the world or buy your games digitally. Never have thought that games could be 'fixed' after release etc.
It seems that Gaming is following Movies/Music into that more 'digital' realm - not only for ease/reach, but also for sustainability, for environmental concerns, for reducing costs (no waste products, no fossil fuels used in manufacturing/distribution, no plastics etc that can end in landfill) etc.
In the past 15yrs, we have seen Netflix rise and more and more Sub Services have become established. So many people consume their media via the internet, buy 'digitally' if not on a Sub service and the 'instancy' of it - can decide to buy/rent any new film without needing to go out to a store, watch wherever you are on whatever device you have - don't need a DVD player and a TV etc so the market has changed a LOT in the past 15yrs and I'd say 2020 Pandemic also helped push people more to Digital.
So I think its inevitable for Sony to go this route and 'compete' with Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc for your 'Subscription' money to access Sony's Media.
I thought it was inevitable that Sony would bring more of their other media to Playstation and/or even their Sub Service. I can see a time when Sony have a Sub Service offering Games, Movies/TV and even Music. It would set their service apart from say Microsoft or Nintendo and/or compete with Netflix, Amazon and Apple...
Sony own Crunchyroll too so a Sony 'Media' Sub service offering Sony Games, Movies, TV and/or Music seems like an obvious progression...
Looks clunky, slow and low budget - Euro-jank - but that doesn't mean it can't be a fun game to play. Glad it seems to be keeping to the OG Robocop and Lewis too but some of the incidental dialogue was getting quite repetitive.
Its something I would likely try on a Sub service or at least wait for it a Sale, but not something I'd want to pre-order or buy around launch based on what I've seen of the Game so far. Maybe reviews and price point could persuade me but right now, its looking a bit 'meh' to me.
Well I can't see a 'Fifa' game on the Market to compete and Konami messed up the only competition EA had in the Football Game market so what choice do gamers have for this year?
Either stick with the 'old' games or buy the latest, which is basically the 'same' game without the Fifa branding anyway. Its not as if some other Publisher has a competing game to challenge EA and with Konami messing up, its just pushing those Fans to buy the ONLY other option.
Unless another Footy game comes out to challenge EA, the 'loss' of the Fifa brand certainly won't hurt them and the lack of competition will only help them...
Considering Push Square have been mentioned on numerous video's that promote Games with Review scores, its not that surprising to me - especially not in the UK and about a UK based site too.
Pure Xbox (and NL too for that matter) does give away the answer so its perhaps the only option dedicated to a single platform that doesn't contain the name of the Company/Hardware to ask that Question.
The initial reveal of the Callisto Project really grabbed my interest but as more and more game-play came out, the less and less interested I became. After seeing the reviews and some more game-play after it released, I had lost all interest. Now I can play it via PS+, I don't know that I will bother trying it - not with a backlog of games I really want to play.
Weird West looks interesting - not sure if its my type of Game-play, but of the 3, its the one I am most likely to try. However, I have no interest in Farming Sim at all.
In terms of PS+, I guess its not bad but for me personally, it feels a bit 'meh'. Nothing I'm excited for and/or can't wait to download when they become available to play.
Comments 5,940
Re: Could Marvel's Blade Come to PS5? Bethesda Declines to Comment
As Ryall states, its perhaps too early to commit to ANY platform(s) yet and no point 'promising' to release on platforms that may not be 'relevant' or 'cost effective' to port to.
It's up to MS and/or any 'licencing' agreement they may have with the IP holder. It makes much more sense for Playstation gamers to 'expect' ALL Bethesda new games to be Exclusive until they are 'confirmed' to be on PS too.
No-one expects Sony to release their 1st party games on Xbox - regardless of whether they 'own' IP's or Licence them (like Spider-Man or MLB). MLB 'forced' Sony to release its MLB games on Xbox or lose the Licence.
MS clearly stated that Zenimax purchase was about bringing Great 'exclusives' to Xbox, and whilst they stated they would continue to 'support' ALL games currently on PS, any 'new' release would be assessed on a Case by Case basis. Arkane are now an Xbox owned Studio, like Naughty Dog or Insomniac are now owned by Sony and 1st Party.
Re: Kratos Voice Actor Underfire for Roasting New Call of Duty Campaign
From Koticks perspective, this years game was expected to be MS's issue - not a big new AAA annual release but only a DLC - the 'first time' ABK would miss its annual Cash Cow. Then we had both the CMA and FTC putting spanners in the works and maybe threw the whole deal into 'jeopardy' and so Kotick insisted on a 'Full' release just in case ABK remained in 'full' control.
It is a 'disappointing' campaign, its MP is playing the Nostalgia Card and Zombies is OK but not worth the asking price alone. Coupled with the aggressive monetisation of Multi-player more befitting the F2P model, its not a great 'buy' these days...
Re: Bungie Confirms Destiny 2 DLC Delay After Company Layoffs
With layoffs, that either 'limits' the ambition, 'extends' the time needed or a combination of both. What signs are there that the relatively short delay will help them suddenly realise their ambition for this big finale they had planned when they have lost a lot of the fanbase limiting the budget, lost a chunk of their staff as well and given the timescape, Putting 'something' together to conclude their game to the 'few' that will play it compared to Destiny's heights.
And move on quickly to Marathon....
Re: US Children Want Subscriptions and Currencies for Christmas, Not Games
I stopped buying my Son 'games' for Christmas/Birthdays over 10yrs ago now. He would much prefer to have 'credit' on his account to take advantage of Digital sales and/or buy DLC/MTX etc in games he was 'enjoying'.
That way he could choose whether he would rather have 1 new Big AAA game, several older AAA sale games, Indies, DLC/MTX etc or combination of these. I think he worked out early that 'money/credit' was better as that gave him the option to choose what he wanted, when he wanted instead of trying to pick something that he might not want by Christmas too...
Re: Magical PS5 FPS Immortals of Aveum Is Probably Coming to PS Plus at Some Point
Considering the Price games have gone up to as well as ALL the other options to fill our gaming time (Sub services, Backwards Compatibility and Sale), in a 'cost of living' crises, a game has to be something 'special' or at least a well known and beloved IP.
This looked like a game of Style over Substance - some generic plot with generic characters and generic game-play wrapped in a shiny UE5 aesthetic with lots of shiny/bright particle effects to 'wow'. Nothing really that made me think it was worth buying at launch, something to pick up maybe in some bargain bin sale or maybe try it on EA Play/PS+/Game Pass when it eventually comes to these sub services.
Even without Sub services, I wouldn't have bought this at launch with all the other great games we have seen - I couldn't afford to buy 'every' game and still pay bills, buy food etc etc. I'd rather spend £70 on buying several older games now on sale I missed than pay the 'it's a new release tax' to play it in the first 'months' of release when it will be much less in 6-12months with more content and possibly better performance due to patches...
If it doesn't sell enough, that tells me they were either asking far too much or not offering what people wanted/expect for that price - that there was better options and/or better value elsewhere. It's also not exactly 'old' either and games can sell for years and years. Ubisoft would often drop prices quickly to find the price point the game will sell at consistently enough to bring in revenue when games aren't selling and others don't drop prices at all because they keep selling at a higher price....
Re: SEGA Isn't Surprised That Companies Want to Acquire It
Of course people know Sega have a lot of great IP's and Potential, but the more you keep squandering that 'potential' with games you do make, the more wolves will be attracted...
If Sega were in a Strong position, that keeps many wolves from trying to buy, and why sell if those IP's were working for you....
I think the key here is for Sega to start trying to use those IP's to realise that 'Potential' all Gamers WANT from those IP's so that they 'sell' and then Sega would be in a stronger position...
Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (PS5) - Bloated, Undercooked, and Outdated All at Once
As a £20-£30 DLC to MW2, this wouldn't be that bad. Zombies could well be a Warzone option - alongside BR & DMZ and the Campaign probably would be better served without the padding to set-up the next game. The MP maps and 'few' additional weapons would really suit a DLC bundle better (as they were surely meant to be) as they aren't 'new' at all...
Re: Physical Games Represented Just 4% of Sales for PlayStation Last Quarter
Overall, Physical is likely to be down as this is the first Gen Playstation console without a disc drive so those owners have no choice to buy Physical and are limited to Digital only purchases.
If 30% of the PS hardware sales are the Digital Only version, that's 30% that won't be buying Physical at all. They may have bought 'some' Physical games even if Digital is their main choice with a Disc based PS5 - but Sales and cheaper new releases may have tempted them but now 'can't' so that's going to impact Physical purchases.
With so many 'Digital' Only releases too, its not surprising that Physical with more 'limited' releases and only available on 'select' hardware (PS5 Disc/Series X - as Series S/PS5 Digital/PC are 'digital only' platforms), its no surprise that it accounts for such a small sector these days
Re: Poll: Do You Think GTA 6 Will Release on PS4?
I guess its possible if they are targeting 4k/60 on a PS5 and could scale it down to 30fps and 1080p (or lower). It really depends on whether it was built in a way to scale across generations or not - no one thought RDR2 was a bad looking/playing game when it released - even if they 'could' scale it up for PS5.
If its built with features and/or certain ways, it may not be possible to Scale down. For example, if they rely on RT GI with 'no' traditional option for less capable hardware or rely on SSDs as fundamental to the game-play, then it won't release on last gen hardware. If there isn't enough of a market on old hardware, they won't scale it down for sales as they need to recoup costs too.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for November 2023?
@Leonhart To you - and it may well be the 'best' of the trilogy - but I think the trilogy is average at best - not something I'd recommend. The second was pretty average 13yrs ago when it released.
If you enjoy - great but considering ALL the games I can play today on my PS5, Mafia 2 wouldn't be in my top 100 games. In other words, there are MANY games I'd rather spend my gaming time playing - even if some of those cost money. I'd rather buy some games than play Mafia 2 for 'free' on PS+.
It may not be 'terrible' but there are MANY better games, many that I'd rather spend time playing - some of which are in my backlog so I am not desperate enough, have so few games in my Library or wish list etc, that Mafia 2 is the 'best' use of my gaming time...
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for November 2023?
@Northern_munkey No probs - hope you are very happy with your choice and it's a very worthy upgrade that will serve you well for years to come...
As long as you found the info useful that's all the thanks I need and just hope it helped you to make your purchasing decision with confidence.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for November 2023?
Nowt here of interest to me. Never liked Dragon Ball, Aliens was very mediocre when I played on Game Pass and Mafia 2 was 'OK' 13yrs ago from my perspective so nothing I'm looking forward, let alone excited to play...
Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3's First PS5, PS4 Campaign Review Is a Massacre
CoD Ghosts had a great campaign and even the multiplayer modes were great too.
The problem was that the series hadn't tried to evolve and was still the 'same' game reskinned, same movement, same modes, same structure and people were 'tired' of it. Games like Titanfall were showing 'Advanced' movement.
The Multiplayer too wasn't helped by such a split in the communities. The game was split on Consoles between those on PS3 and those 'few' who bought the game on PS4 in the first few months. On XB1, that was perhaps worse with fewer hardware sales - no multi-platform MP back then.
It was a cross generation game with the community split across too many consoles and people were getting a bit fed up with what often felt like a reskinned MP bolted on to a 'similar' campaign that no longer was 'shocking' or really doing anything that new with the Campaign...
But then we got Advanced Warfare and the run of Advanced Movement games before the Community wanted CoD to return to Boots on the Ground - even had to bring back Modern Warfare to steady a sinking ship...
Re: Destiny 2 Fans Demand Refunds for Next DLC After Bungie Layoffs
To be honest, I stopped 'supporting' Bungie and Destiny years ago - I voted with my Wallet at the direction and monetisation methods they were utilising before they left Activision so I can appreciate why many feel this may be the 'final nail' in the Coffin from their perspective.
It already seemed to me that the 'paid' for content wasn't given the time, the attention etc as much as the Eververse and MTX Cosmetics - often 'better' than the Rewards offered from the highest tier paid for content (Raid Rewards) and the fact that they 'sell' you all the 'great' gear you can earn, only to basically take it away the following DLC so you have to 'grind' again and again...
I don't know if this is 'just' about the Layoffs, but the whole 'news' - don't feel like the Final Shape will now be worth the Price (reduced in quality, content etc with 'fewer' working on it) and after the last DLC was disappointing - this is a combination of factors that was the tipping point for them...
Re: Interest in Destiny 2 Reportedly at an All-Time Low
I lost interest in Destiny before they left Activision and the game went Free to Play. I was already beginning to get seriously annoyed with the eververse store and putting the 'best' Cosmetics behind a ridiculously high paywall instead of 'earning' the best cosmetics from playing content I 'PAID' for, them making stuff I had grinded for 'obsolete/useless' to force you to 'grind' etc when the Content/Story never really seemed to have the same effort put into it as the Eververse store...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Flaming_Kaiser Great - Consoles 'suit' you the best. However if you gamed on PC, you wouldn't buy a Playstation if ALL their games released day/date on PC - its pointless...
Playstation doesn't really give you a choice - its buy Playstation or 'miss out' - at least until they bring it to PC. With MS, you have so many choices - from using whatever hardware you may have and stream it for a small monthly fee with many other games also playable for that tiny fee - great if you can't afford or justify spending hundreds on Hardware just to play game(s) - all the way up to having the 'best' PC set-up money can buy - you don't NEED an Xbox Console or have to miss out, don't need to go out and buy a Series S/X at all or even 'buy' the game these days....
Also if you have a 'great' PC, you are not forced to spend hundreds to buy a Console or 'miss out' until MS release it on their preferred platform. There is an 'option' to suit any preference/budget. Even Steam Deck console gamers for example don't need a Series S/X or 'miss out', they can play Day 1.
If you want the Ease of Plug & Play that Consoles offer - MS still has the Series S or X as two different tiers. Those 'options' are still there of course - Series X is the Equivalent to the PS5 in that regard. But with Sony, Consoles are not an 'option' - its the ONLY choice to play Sony games day/date. Someone with a XB1S, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop etc doesn't 'need' to buy a Series S/X to play Forza Motorsport but a PS4, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop gamer will need to buy a PS5 for Spider-Man 2.
Sony's 'ecosystem' is literally just the Console. MS's is the 'PC/Cloud/Xbox' of which the Console is just 1 option - which may be the 'best' option for some - hence they'll buy, but for others, they may 'prefer' the other options as it suits them, their budget, their preferences etc the best...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Cikajovazmaj Again - PC gaming does not necessarily mean those sat at a 'Desktop' with at least a RTX 30 series or equivalent AMD GPU. Steam Deck is 'not' a PC, its a Console - but Steam is 'PC' so therefore comes under the PC umbrella. PC has Xbox Store and Game Pass too of course - but PC can also be a RoG Ally for example or any of the other Windows Handheld gaming devices on the market - maybe better than a Console for those who spend most of their Gaming time on the Go...
Even a cheap Student Laptop with no separate GPU can be used to play games. Cheaper than a Series S with a screen - as long as it has wifi and a Browser, you can play on Game Pass Cloud. I know its 'not' the best way to play, Series S has its advantages over Cloud, Series X - advantages over Series S and high end PC's advantages over all the rest.
Point is, if you wanted to play Starfield, Forza, Fable, Perfect Dark etc the DAY they release but can't afford (or justify) buying a Series S/X, you can still play on some device - even if its just your Mobile Phone or via a browser on your 'old' laptop/PC. Not everyone cares about 4k or even use Game mode on their TV so Cloud may feel much better, less lag than they are used too...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Northern_munkey ALLM - Auto Low Latency Mode - basically switches a TV into its 'Low Latency' (often called Game mode) automatically. It depends on whether you prefer lowest input latency because it often turns off some of the TV's own built in Picture Processing to save time, therefore reduce lag, before its displayed for you to see. Some find it a bit 'Raw' and would rather have the TV's Picture Processing (movie mode for example).
VRR is Variable Refresh Rate and is useful too. If you are bothered by stutter or Screen Tearing when frame rates drop, this is essential. Without it, a TV refreshes 60 times a second (generally - although TV's are now using 120hz panels with VRR enabled sets) so if the frame rate drops, its 'out of sync with the TV leading to a stutter or screen tear. VRR will adjust the TV to match the Frame Rate so it refreshes with every frame - at least for Frame Rates above 48fps on PS5 to so it at least looks smoother and/or cleaner.
Both are recommended for Gamers and if you do get a 120hz VRR display for example, you can play games like R&C, Spider-Man 2 etc at 40fps Quality mode instead of 30fps. 40fps is exactly mid-way between 30 and 60fps. I'd never advise or tell people how to spend their money so I'll leave it to you to decide if its worth it to you - but all I'll say is that these are 'Gaming' Features of modern TV's and Modern Consoles (at least the Series S/X and PS5) are able to utilise those so I would highly recommend these features to ANY gamer and let them decide if its worth it to them...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Fiendish-Beaver I know a PC maybe the most expensive option - if you want to have the best hardware - but you are assuming that people will need to invest in a PC to play. Some may have a decent enough PC that can match a Series S - only have a 1080p monitor anyway. Even if their PC can't play games natively, they don't have to 'invest' in CPU's, GPU's or RAM to play, they can play via Cloud.
Yes Cloud may not be the 'best' way to play, but it maybe better than their hardware would run it natively, if at all. I can play Starfield on a Student Laptop/PC for a LOT less money than it would cost to Buy a PS5/Series X Console. I can play Starfield on my XB1S without having to go out and buy a Series S/X for example but PS4 gamers will have to upgrade to play Spider-Man 2.
You don't 'need' an Xbox Console to play day/date - Steam Deck, RoG Ally and numerous other 'Handheld' options exist. So even if you can't buy a $1000+ PC (Laptop or Desktop), there are still cheaper options. The Consoles may well give the 'best bang for buck' upfront price for performance, but PC's can be upgraded as and when you want, games are cheaper too and you can save money on not having to pay to play online too.
'PC' could be an 'expensive' gaming Rig but also a handheld 'Console' like device these days. You also have the fact that 'everyone' these days 'owns' a device they could play games on via the Cloud too.
The 'hardcore' gamers may well already have a PC gaming rig - whether its 'better' than Series X or not, it makes sense to upgrade that than spend $500 on a Console. There is so much choice for gamers of ALL budgets - from those that can't afford to buy 'hardware' specifically at the moment all the way up to the most hardcore/affluent gamers.
Yes a Console provides a certain tier of quality - but its a 'choice' with MS. I can play Starfield on my RoG Ally anywhere, on my 3080ti Gaming Laptop too, on any PC regardless of its 'gaming' specs, on my XB1X or S, on my Samsung Mobile etc - I don't have to play ONLY on Series X.
Some really don't care about 4k - don't have 4k Displays so their 'hardware' is more than adequate to play Starfield - so why 'buy' a Console? There is 'options' for everyone - whatever 'budget' they have. Cloud may not be the 'best' way, but for some, it enables them to play at a cost they can afford/justify. No pressure to buy ANY Console - its OPTIONAL
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@themightyant Exactly this!
Things like PS+ Subscriptions and First Party games like Spider-Man 2 are ONLY available on Playstation. If you want to play SM2 the day it releases, you'll need to own a Playstation - so it pushes Sales of that Console.
Game Pass and Starfield are NOT exclusive to Xbox Consoles. You do NOT need an Xbox to play Starfield or Subscribe to Game Pass to play it day/date. In fact you can play it Day 1 on Cloud for example and its NOT even a Console Exclusive as it can be played on a Steam Deck.
The Series Console is purely 'optional' hardware for Microsoft. Series S is the 'entry' hardware tier with Series X offering a comparable 'premium' Gaming tier to PS5 - but Cloud is still the cheapest entry tier and PC's can offer the 'highest' tier, well above what PS5 is able to offer if you have the budget to spend.
Point is, Sony should continue to Sell more Hardware - especially as it looks like ABK games won't be 'exclusive' and they aren't that 'prolific' either. It may still make more sense for MANY gamers to buy a Playstation because ONLY Playstation will have 'exclusives' as ALL of MS's Games, if you want to play them, will be available on PC (inc Handhelds like RoG Ally) or Cloud so you don't 'need' an Xbox. PC & Playstation for example could be all you need and not 'miss out' on ANY MS exclusives.
If by 'market position', its just the 'console' ecosystem - not counting any who may also be in that Ecosystem and therefore not buying a Console for the sake of it, then of course releasing ALL your Exclusives on PC/Cloud is going to negatively impact. As stated, if you want to play Starfield, Forza, Perfect Dark, Fable etc - you don't 'NEED' an Xbox and PC gamers who may buy a PS5 to play Spider-Man 2, ain't buying an Xbox ever again...
Re: Poll: Are You Playing Alan Wake 2?
I enjoyed Alan Wake and its big Stephen King inspired Story on the 360 - also liked American Nightmare too but didn't like Quantum Break or Control so I am not convinced by this - looks good but something is telling me to wait on this....
Re: Delayed for an Impressive Sixth Time, Skull and Bones Now Expected in Early 2024
The longer it goes on, the less likely it will be successful enough to warrant supporting or even continuing to make more games in the future. The escalating costs of development will make it tougher to recoup that...
Personally, I couldn't care less - it was never on my Radar, never appealed to me, and I hated the ship combat it Assassins Creed (Black Flag, Origins, Odyssey etc) so a game based around that doesn't interest me at all. Each to their own of course and if you are 'excited' by this, maybe eventually you'll get to play it - until Ubisoft decides to close it down!
Re: Former PlayStation Boss Shawn Layden Says It's 'Criminal' Industry Isn't Properly Preserving Games
There is nothing to say that Digital won't 'preserve' games in the future. Discs these days are just a delivery mechanism to get the 'software' to the Customer so they can install it on their hardware to play - no different from the internet.
However, Discs also need to be manufactured and distributed, as well as contain the 'earliest' version of the code - often requiring Day 1 patches and/or internet connection to install the rest of the game as its too big to be all on disc.
So what are you 'preserving' these days? half a game? the broken -pre-day 1 experience? Something that is 'unplayable' and certainly not the game it will end up becoming once Devs have patched and added extra content/modes/features etc 'post release'.
There are many games over the past few years I've bought on Disc - yet I wouldn't want to play what's on the Disc today. Perhaps one of the best examples is Cyberpunk 2077 - the game on disc was AWFUL, even the day 1 patches wouldn't help and its a completely different game to the version on Digital stores today...
Licences too 'expire'. If EVERY game was Preserved, Spider-Man would soon be playable on Xbox for certain - albeit the ABK Spider-Man games that 'could' be remade/remastered. However, licences - whether music, brands (like Ford, Mercedes etc in car games) or IP's are often licenced for the 'life' of Specific Hardware - like PS3 or Xbox 360 or for a Duration (like 5-10yrs) because they don't expect you to 'keep' playing those 'OLD' games on new Hardware when 'newer' games exist in the same genre/IP and/or not willing to pay for Licences when Sales won't cover the costs.
Not 'every' game deserves to be preserved in my opinion. Should every version of Fifa ever released be preserved? What about shovelware games for trophy score? What about awful games like Life of Black Tiger?
I have no issue with certain games being preserved - especially those that had a major impact in the world of Gaming. Pac Man for example had a big impact but not 'every' version or copycat clone that came out deserves to be 'preserved' in my opinion...
Re: You'll Need an Internet Connection to Pair PS5 Slim's Optional Blu-ray Drive
Its probably so that ONLY Sony can make/sell a drive and market it at whatever price they want knowing that the ONLY option for consumers is to buy 'their' Hardware or miss out.
Sony will want you to buy their TV's too to get the 'most' out of Playstation...
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon All I am saying is that people will have different perspectives on what they consider to be good/bad value. Some will be 'fine' with what they get for their money and others will expect 'more'.
I remember when games would have a 8hr+ Single Player, an extensive Online Multi-player Suite etc for around £40 - now it seems that you'll get an 8hr game for £70 and they'll sell a Multi-player suite separately for example. Instead of making a bigger game, the Games seem to be getting smaller, shorter - albeit 'prettier' yet charging more.
Games aren't 'better' than 10yrs ago either - as RE4, Dead Space and Quake 2 are some of the highest rated 'releases' this year - games that are 'over' 10yrs Old that still stand-up today. The Quality of the writing, the Game-play etc stands up.
Anyway, If you have £70 to spend on gaming, some may choose to buy this at launch - pay a high 'premium' just because its 'new', Pay a Premium to be one of the 'first' to play. This is when Games are at their 'worst' value for a Gamer as the price is at its highest, the game is generally at its worst (for a Consumer as it requires patches/fixes/optimisation to iron out any bugs - even if it releases in a great state) and lowest Content too - with 'promises' of Post release content to come. Therefore, when its half price in a sale, you get a 'better,bigger' game for less - much 'better' value for money.
You may place a 'higher' value on games to be one of the first to experience it, the FOMO effect pushes you to pay that Premium to play the 'best' new Release this week for example, but another may decide to buy it when its in a sale because they can get a LOT more Games, a lot more entertainment etc for a lot less.
Why spend £70 on a single game when you could spend £10 on a Sub Service and play numerous games, buy several superb games in a sale etc and get much better 'value' for your money. It doesn't matter how long/short SM2 is, it will be 'better' value and soon be on PS+ anyway.
Point is that Value is 'relative' to an individual and therefore can't be argued. As I said, I can't argue with you about the Value of SM2 in reality because its personal to you, just as you can't really argue that others may get more 'value' from their £70 to them so think SM2 isn't great value either.
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon Oh and whilst I am trying to be 'objective' and say that Value is totally relative to the individual, their preferences, budget etc I can see your point. I don't necessarily believe that a 100hr+ game is better value than a 15-20hr game - as I said, I'd rather play a 15-20hr 'great' game than a 100+ hr Mediocre broken Mess, filled with repetitive Game-play, repeated repetitive Side Quests, bland characters with a predictable and/or generic plot.
Therefore you have to look at each game on a game by game basis. I know that if I had a 'limited' budget and could only buy 'new' games once every month or two, then I'd rather buy a 'great' 100hr+ game that will see me through at least until I can buy something else, than buy something I'll be finished with in a weekend and then have little/nothing to play until I can afford another game, wait for 'short' games to drop in price so I could buy several games to see me through.
Personally, I don't believe ANY game is worth $50+ just to play it in the first few months or so of release. The Stories, Game-play loops etc are NO better - even if they 'look' more realistic. I'd rather play Uncharted 2 than U4 again and much prefer AC2 to AC:Valhalla. And until the price went up, I was buying 'new' games for £40-45 at most and £65-70 for Special Collectors editions with DLC bonuses, Steelbook cases, Artbooks, Soundtracks etc so £65-70 (as they are in the UK) for a 'standard' release is quite a jump up for what? Better Graphics? We had that with the PS4 over PS3 too but didn't have to pay £10 more for the PS4 version because it offered the full 1080p with higher quality visual settings...
That's like charging nVidia RTX series an extra £10 over AMD users because they can play games at higher Graphical settings/performance thanks to its Cores specifically for RT, AI and DLSS.
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon As I tried to point out, its all relative. You may think that paying $70 for 20hrs is great value to you but for another person who spent weeks saving their Pocket Money to buy the game and finish it over a weekend somewhat poor value when they could have bought a game that would last them 'months' so they can save money for their 'next' game.
They may be better off picking up Cyberpunk now in a sale and playing that, wait for Spider-Man 2 to crop up in a sale as that will be 'even' better Value but right now, its not 'worth' $70 because they can get a LOT more games for that money.
If you can only buy a 'new' game a month, buying a game and beating it in a few days may feel like its not great 'value' as they have 'nothing' to play until 'next' month now but could have bought several games or even just 1 game that will see them through to their 'next' game.
Maybe if you look at Sub services too (inc PS+ Extra), they have many 'great' high quality games to play for a much lower monthly cost - and games like God of War, Horizon:ZD, Last of Us, Uncharted, R&C, Returnal, Spider-Man & Miles Morales are of 'equal' Sony Quality so much better 'value' than buying Spider-Man 2 at launch when it will be on PS+ at some point and/or in a sale offering much better 'value' than it does today.
You are still paying more just to play it at launch - and with 'many' games, they update and/or patch the game - add more features, modes, content etc (like NG+, Performance modes etc), fix bugs and/or optimise it better to extract 'more' from the Hardware etc so that when you do buy it in a Sale, its a bigger, better and/or much more playable/fun/balanced experience so 'better' value as it also costs less...
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon When $70 can buy you several great 'High Quality' 15-20hr games, then $70 for one, just because its 'new' maybe isn't great value to that person.
You can buy several 'Game of the Year' games in a sale that are arguably better now they have been patched, updated with extra content/features/modes instead for example which maybe even better Value to the Gamer.
Its relative to the individual and what they feel is the better use of the money for them...
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
'Value' is always relative to the individual so I don't necessarily agree with this. If someone feels that the Game is 'too short' or not enough content they 'want' for that price point, that is equally as valid a perspective.
Length itself isn't always a good metric as you can have 100's of hours worth of 'repetitive' game-play/quests etc just to pad out a 'mediocre' Campaign with bland characters and a very predictable and/or generic plot but a much shorter game exceeds expectation and delivers an experience you feel justified its price point.
Some games deliver on both Quality and Quantity too that make '8hr' games feel incredibly short, left with a feeling of 'is that it?' I expected 'more' for the price...', even if its 'Quality' cannot be faulted.
£70 is also going to feel expensive to some, and maybe pocket-money change to another. It really does depend on your Budget, how much free cash you can spend on games. If you have to save weeks to buy a Game at launch, that's going to be a different 'value' proposition to someone who could buy several 'new' games every week....
Re: Venom Spin-Off Game an Option for Insomniac, If Fans Want It
Makes sense as Sony do own the Movie Licencing rights to Spider-Man, Wolverine and Venom - something that has complicated Disney/Marvels plans.
I'd rather Insomniac returned to creating their OWN games, another Resistance for example would appeal more to me.
Re: Is It Surprising that PlayStation Fans Don't Really Care About the PS5 Slim?
The price, coupled with some big discounts on the OG design in recent months really doesn't make the Slim an 'attractive' option - 3 years on from release when most 'hardcore' gamers already have a PS5.
Yes it maybe more 'profitable' for Sony to release a smaller design 3yrs on at/above the price they launched with, but once the OG designs are sold, then this is the ONLY option for those 'late comers' to the PS5.
If a 'slimmer' PS5 is still costing $500 (with a drive), I'd hate to think how much they would expect for a Pro with any 'meaningful' upgrade. I doubt you'll get 'native' 4k/60 when Some games are running at below 1080p using FSR or TAA to upsample to 4k and still not always hitting 60fps.
The 'only' reason to upgrade from an OG PS5 is really if the OG breaks down. It doesn't offer any other major benefits - unless you are really concerned about the Electric bill and want to reduce your consumption without reducing your game time.
Re: PlayStation Allegedly Under Pressure to Make Major Gaming Acquisitions
@Jimboss If it wasn't, then why would Sony persist with the Practice knowing that they will sell Playstation Hardware because of CoD and 'extra' content, early access etc. You can argue it 'worked' for MS during the 360 era as they had DLC earlier too.
Of course there will be a portion of the CoD community that will play on their preferred Hardware or can't own multiple platforms so will 'miss out', but those deals will make CoD gamers buy a Playstation rather than 'miss out'. Buy an Xbox, not get content but still have to pay the same price, not going to get XP bonuses that help PS players rank up and unlock gear at a faster rate, not getting access to maps at the same time - advantages for PS gamers who can learn the Maps, unlock gear quicker etc.
The fact is it makes CoD a less attractive package on other Platforms when one has ealy/extra content for the same cost and splits the community too which isn't great for the Game/Community. Of course PS gamers are 'happy' because they benefit, but the majority are NOT.
Re: EA Sports FC 24 (PS5) - Rebranded and Refined But Not Revolutionary
I don't think anyone is surprised by this. Rebranded but ultimately the same game people 'expected' Fifa24 would be. The Rebrand hasn't really impacted this game in either a positive or negative.
Its Fifa23 with the usual minor tweaks you get year after year after year from EA.
Re: PlayStation Allegedly Under Pressure to Make Major Gaming Acquisitions
In the past few years ABK have basically dried up on releases - considering the size and number of Studios across Activision and Blizzard. King don't release games on Console anyway.
Apart from some Crash/Spyro/Tony Hawkes remasters and the Annual CoD, they have only released Diablo 4, OW2.0 (more an update), Crash4 and Crash Team Rumble.
MS themselves got 'ridiculed' for a lack of Games despite acquiring several Studios in 2018 yet ABK had far more people and bigger Studios. The way ABK were ran under Kotick, I only saw one outcome - go under or be sold! Too reliant on CoD, putting all their eggs in one basket and stifling Creativity in order to churn out the same game year after year after year...
Sony have been the 'dominant' Console for at least the last decade and used the position to screw over Gamers on other Platforms in order to artificially boost the 'Playstation'. Extra Content/bonuses for PS only splits and angers communities of fans of an IP, forcing them to play on PS instead of their 'preferred' or even the 'best' Platform with the best graphics/performance - the PC. Having to play on PS5 at 60fps to get the best visuals or 120fps to get the best performance when their PC will offer 120fps+ at higher visual quality just to get 'early' access or some 'bonus' modes/cosmetics isn't great for the CoD community.
If this does put 'pressure' on Sony to do something - even though it seems they are not really 'losing' anything by the fact MS are aquiring ABK, still planning to release CoD etc for at least the next 10yrs and support it similar to how they support Minecraft (Mojang are still a 'multi-platform' Studio owned by MS), I just hope it means they don't double down on splitting Communities and invest in their OWN ecosystem, be more 'humble' instead of thinking they are a 'Premium' brand so command 'Premiums' when their products are no better than others - just given a bit more time to polish...
Re: Netflix Aims to Be PlayStation's Next Big Rival, And It Wants Grand Theft Auto
Well with ABK 'streaming' rights now with Ubisoft, that enables Netflix, Apple, Google etc as well as Sony of course, to have access to all ABK games to be available to those 'giants' too to help them set-up and compete with the 'established' giants of gaming.
That could mean the likes of CoD, Diablo, Overwatch, WoW, Crash, Spyro etc will end up on Netflix too to bolster their Streaming content and help them Establish themselves as a Gaming supplier/hub.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Extra, Premium Games for October 2023?
I don't subscribe to Extra or Premium and these games wouldn't convince me to Subscribe either. Alien: Isolation is perhaps the only game I'd actually want to play - if I didn't already own it. I'm sure I've seen it on sale for under £10.
Gotham Knights may well be one of the Newest and high profile releases, but it was also not a great game - maybe 'better' now than when it released in terms of playability, but that doesn't change some of the other issues - like story for example.
It might be worth 'trying' for 'free' if you already sub, but I'd rather keep the Sub fee in my account, maybe buy a game or two in a sale that I can play 'forever' instead.
Re: US Retail Giant Best Buy Allegedly Binning Physical Media
Since every game now has to be installed on internal storage, it doesn't run from Disc at all, Physical is just a way of the Publisher/Dev to 'deliver' the Software to your Console - just like the internet is used to deliver the Software via downloading.
Games are either 'incomplete' due to limited 'disc' space or a buggy, broken mess that both require 'internet' to Download the rest of the Game and/or patches to play. The only reason you need the Disc after installation is to 'verify' you still own a valid licence to play.
If we look at 'next-gen' hardware, Physical is only really bought by PS5 (disc) and Series X owners as PS5 (Digital), Series S and PC owners all buy Digitally. A 'large' percentage of the Gaming community can't buy Physical anyway so they are only printing discs for the 'few' on PS5/Series X that want/prefer Physical - but a growing percentage are switching to Digital making Physical a much smaller percentage of gamers.
On top of all the extra costs involved to manufacture and distribute Physical, the market for them is shrinking and the Game on Disc can be 'very' different from the Game today - look at Cyberpunk and how that evolved since Launch - who'd want to 'preserve' that version that came on Disc?
Re: Don't Worry, You Can Still Upgrade the PS5 Slim's SSD
@thefourfoldroot1 Well that's you. I prefer to be able to return to games as and when I want - whether I have 'finished' the main Story or not. Take Cyberpunk, I have owned it since launch but with Patches and now some upcoming DLC, I may want to return to it years later. A lot of games get updates, new content etc and reasons to return and/or reasons why I didn't finish them at the time.
As I said, I don't want to be restricted to playing a 'handful' of games everytime I turn my Console on. I don't always have 'hours' to reinstall games or move them, so I want to be able to turn my console on and be playing 'any' game I have within 'minutes' at the most.
Its not like the 'pre-XB1/PS4' era where EVERY game you owned could be accessed by simply putting the Cartridge/Disc into the hardware as it ran from that Disc - at most,, you'd get an update to install first. But as games run from internal Storage now and must be installed too, the amount of Storage is limiting the number of games you can access.
I also don't want to have to decide which games to move/delete every time I want to play something 'different' - whether its an 'old' game I own, some 'free' game from a Sub Service (like PS+) or a new game I've just bought.
Re: Don't Worry, You Can Still Upgrade the PS5 Slim's SSD
@thefourfoldroot1 Because I don't want to spend hours reinstalling or transfering games across from an external HDD to play games I own when I want to play.
Yes you can ONLY play 1 game at a time, but I own more games than can fit on my SSD. Take Cyberpunk, I may not have played for months, but with new DLC, I may want to jump back. If I can only keep '5-8' games on the SSD, that limits what games I can play 'instantly' at any time out of my Collection with the rest either requiring reinstallation, updating etc before I can jump back in.
I may only play 1 game at a time, but I also don't want to be 'limited' as to what games I can just jump in and play quickly/easily to the select few games installed on the SSD despite owning others.
Re: Disney CEO Reportedly Being Pressured to Double Down on Gaming
Disney acquired LucasArts and could have been a big Gaming Company by now if they had ambition in that direction.
As for a Monopoly, that would require so many Publishers to be bought. In Japan alone you have Sony, Nintendo, Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Sega, Capcom etc let alone Ubisoft, EA, TenCent, Embracer, Warner Bros etc as well - all Publishers/creators of Games so a long way to go to get down to 2 or 3 big companies with anyone owning the vast majority of IP's, Studio's etc. People need to know what a 'monopoly' is before they start claiming a monopolisation of the Industry.
That being said, I can see Disney being an attractive proposition for the right Company. Not only do you have some of the Biggest IP's in 'media' (Disney, Star Wars, Marvel etc) to create games for, you also have their TV/Movie expertise for their Games - whether they choose to make a TV series, Movie or use that expertise for more cinematic games, Motion Capture etc.
If Disney did buy EA, they could turn Mass Effect, Dead Space etc into TV/movies - much like Sony are doing with their Game IP's - Last of Us, Uncharted. Twisted Metal, R&C etc.
Re: Activision Boss Hints a Guitar Hero Revival Could Be on the Cards
Personally I never liked these games and seemed a money making scheme to sell more junk peripherals and with billions of songs, almost a never ending list of tracks they could sell you - especially with some AI way of translating the music to the GH input style to save time and staff from doing that.
With MS taking over, Koticks days as Activision CEO are over and it would be up to MS to decide whether or not to resurrect GH, decide to change any plans (especially if they haven't 'publicly' been announced) etc. So I would wait until any official confirmation once under 'new' management.
Whether we get another GH with the Peripherals or not, time will tell. Rhythm based games don't seem 'overly' common these days and in a world where plastics, environment, sustainability etc are hot topics, I don't know that they will want to ship 'large' peripherals, but I won't say it will 'never' happen as we just don't know the future...
Re: Poll: How's Your Hype for Marvel's Spider-Man 2?
I thought the first game was 'OK' - nothing 'special' and had a LOT of what I would call typical of an 'Ubisoft Open World' game - towers to unlock the map, lots of filler side activities (backpacks, photos, side missions, enemy bases etc), repetitive 'puzzles' in the lab, boring instant fail 'stealth' and a reliance on QTE's. Most battles result in a similar structure of dodging until you can web sling somethiing to get a chance to attack the boss, repeat 3x and follow the QTE's to win.
It played well and Swinging was fun. Combat borrowed heavily from Arkham and Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (which also had great swinging) and so felt familiar and solid enough. Being a 'Sony' Game helped the final release deliver a 'solid' experience at launch that felt ready to release (Maybe the 'single' Platform helps too to ensure its polished) - which can't be said of other games but I felt like Insomniac took Ubisofts open world template and borrowed from Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (an influence on Batman's Combat) and wrapped it in a Spider-Man skin.
As such, I doubt I'll buy Spider-Man 2 at launch. I don't think any game is worth spending £70 just to play in the first months of release when I can wait until its cheaper in a sale. It would really have to be something special, a complete game changer to convince me to purchase sooner...
Re: Sony Pictures Core Movie App Launches Today on PS5, PS4 with Exclusive Benefits
@BeerIsAwesome True - but things are certainly a lot different today. The infrastructure has improved as well as the market, the way more and more people are accessing their favourite media etc.
Its like saying Nintendo didn't really succeed with VR so shouldn't or won't reconsider VR ever again but things change. In the 90's, you'd never have thought that you could game with people all over the world or buy your games digitally. Never have thought that games could be 'fixed' after release etc.
It seems that Gaming is following Movies/Music into that more 'digital' realm - not only for ease/reach, but also for sustainability, for environmental concerns, for reducing costs (no waste products, no fossil fuels used in manufacturing/distribution, no plastics etc that can end in landfill) etc.
In the past 15yrs, we have seen Netflix rise and more and more Sub Services have become established. So many people consume their media via the internet, buy 'digitally' if not on a Sub service and the 'instancy' of it - can decide to buy/rent any new film without needing to go out to a store, watch wherever you are on whatever device you have - don't need a DVD player and a TV etc so the market has changed a LOT in the past 15yrs and I'd say 2020 Pandemic also helped push people more to Digital.
So I think its inevitable for Sony to go this route and 'compete' with Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc for your 'Subscription' money to access Sony's Media.
Re: Sony Pictures Core Movie App Launches Today on PS5, PS4 with Exclusive Benefits
I thought it was inevitable that Sony would bring more of their other media to Playstation and/or even their Sub Service. I can see a time when Sony have a Sub Service offering Games, Movies/TV and even Music. It would set their service apart from say Microsoft or Nintendo and/or compete with Netflix, Amazon and Apple...
Sony own Crunchyroll too so a Sony 'Media' Sub service offering Sony Games, Movies, TV and/or Music seems like an obvious progression...
Re: Watch This RoboCop: Rogue City Gameplay, You Have 20 Seconds to Comply
Looks clunky, slow and low budget - Euro-jank - but that doesn't mean it can't be a fun game to play. Glad it seems to be keeping to the OG Robocop and Lewis too but some of the incidental dialogue was getting quite repetitive.
Its something I would likely try on a Sub service or at least wait for it a Sale, but not something I'd want to pre-order or buy around launch based on what I've seen of the Game so far. Maybe reviews and price point could persuade me but right now, its looking a bit 'meh' to me.
Re: Turns Out EA Sports May Never Have Needed FIFA After All
Well I can't see a 'Fifa' game on the Market to compete and Konami messed up the only competition EA had in the Football Game market so what choice do gamers have for this year?
Either stick with the 'old' games or buy the latest, which is basically the 'same' game without the Fifa branding anyway. Its not as if some other Publisher has a competing game to challenge EA and with Konami messing up, its just pushing those Fans to buy the ONLY other option.
Unless another Footy game comes out to challenge EA, the 'loss' of the Fifa brand certainly won't hurt them and the lack of competition will only help them...
Re: Mini Review: Scorn (PS5) - A Brilliantly Disgusting Puzzler with Gameplay Woes
A lot of Style with so little Substance...
Re: Random: Push Square Was a Question in a UK Quiz Show
Considering Push Square have been mentioned on numerous video's that promote Games with Review scores, its not that surprising to me - especially not in the UK and about a UK based site too.
Pure Xbox (and NL too for that matter) does give away the answer so its perhaps the only option dedicated to a single platform that doesn't contain the name of the Company/Hardware to ask that Question.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for October 2023?
The initial reveal of the Callisto Project really grabbed my interest but as more and more game-play came out, the less and less interested I became. After seeing the reviews and some more game-play after it released, I had lost all interest. Now I can play it via PS+, I don't know that I will bother trying it - not with a backlog of games I really want to play.
Weird West looks interesting - not sure if its my type of Game-play, but of the 3, its the one I am most likely to try. However, I have no interest in Farming Sim at all.
In terms of PS+, I guess its not bad but for me personally, it feels a bit 'meh'. Nothing I'm excited for and/or can't wait to download when they become available to play.
Re: New Cuphead Update Skips PS4, Will Be Exclusive to Xbox, PC
Maybe they will do something for Playstation Fans too when it reaches their 5th+ Anniversary on their platform. Time will tell...