BAMozzy

@get2sammyb I disagrre about 'early access' - its a 'bonus' perk to tempt pre-ordering a game along with any 'cosmetic' bonuses often given too. The fact that it maybe 'bundled' in with a Season Pass (sold separately to those buying Standard versions) doesn't mean you are paying 'more' for Early Access either. In 5yrs time, the records will all state the game released on the date the game was 'officially' released. It's only a 'bonus' to entice 'pre-ordering' as it is pointless post-release - you can't go back in time!

That being said, I do agree with your sentiment about prices overall. I couldn't care less that cartridge based games cost 'more' - they had a LOT more manufacturing cost and far less 'money' per sale in profit. Not only did you have a Cartridge, that cartridge was 'hardware' too. It also came in a box, often with a booklet too - now the vast majority get 'nothing' Physical at all, nothing that had manufacturing and distribution costs of the 'Physical' media.

In other words, Publishers have massively reduced their costs on producing Physical media since the Cartridge days when the majority of that 'price' was covering their manufacturing and distribution costs.

Its not as if these games won't be less than £50 within a few months after release - especially if they don't sell well. There is no way I can 'Justify' paying £70 to play a game - just because its 'new' when there are AAA games for far less money I could buy.

With Backwards Compatibility, the 'need' to buy 'NEW' games is significantly reduced. That Backlog can tide you over until Games are on Sale and/or take advantage of the very cheap older games you missed until the prices drop. Play games like the Witcher 3 for example which is still one of the best games of the past decade...

Of course, Subscription Services too can offer a 'big' Library of Games to fill your gaming time until the prices drop and/or the games are actually patched to be worth playing. Even if they don't offer the newest release(s), they can offer a LOT of great games to play that makes '$70' for one game look incredibly bad value. Pay $70 for 1 game or $15 to play 500+ games inc some of the best games from the past 10yrs or so...

@Flaming_Kaiser Its the same as it's been for the last 5yrs or so - its not 'changed its 'delivery' method, it was the 'same' last year - although last year, pre-orderers could play the Campaign a week early - but this year EVERYONE gets to play EVERYTHING from the exact same 'time' (unless you buy from Steam/Battle.net).

Like EVERY Call of Duty, Suport 'stops' after a year s the 'new' game is the focus. Obviously you can still 'play' everything after a year, its just dwindling numbers to find players and there is no Season Pass tie-in with it.

You can still play MW2 or MW3 if you want, its just the 'online' PvP/PvE modes may 'struggle' to find games and the ping is not 'ideal' but still playable because the 'majority' playing will be playing the Latest.

I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) to buy, I was merely commenting on the reason why Steam and Battle.net purchasers will have to 'wait' a bit to download/install the game whilst Console/Windows Store purchases will be able to play from the time it goes 'Live' (it is a Live Service Game too) in their region.

I couldn't care less who will play BO6 and who doesn't. It's up to them!

@Flaming_Kaiser The Single Player has Online streaming for assets so you cannot play it until it goes 'live' - same as Zombies/MP mode.

All my post was explaining, was the fact that pre-orders on Console and Windows Store can pre-load the game from the 21st and as its 'pre-loaded', they can play from 'midnight' on the 25th - the 'day' it releases. If you buy, you can only buy physically once it 'officially' releases on the 25th October so can only 'install' after its 'live'. Stores shouldn't sell it before...

The point I was trying to make is that the earliest anyone can play is with pre-ordering on Xbox, Playstation or Windows Store on PC so you can 'pre-load' and play 'when' the game is released in your region - also those with Game Pass can pre-load too.

At that 'time' it releases, you can also buy the game on ANY Platform, BUT you'll have to wait until its downloaded and installed before you play and that includes pre-orders through Steam or Battle.net - meaning that you'll have 'delayed' access compared to those pre-ordering on Console or Windows store as well as those with Game Pass.

I don't see the issue - its no different to many other games in reality as you can't play them before they launch - its just that 'some' games may be 'playable' before release if you are able to get hold of a copy 'before' the release date. This is confirming that even if you get your 'pre-order' early, you can't play it because its not 'Live'

The reason Console and Windows Store users can play at 'Midnight' where as for Steam and Battle.net users its later, is down to the ability to 'pre-install the game.

For Steam & Battle.net, they can't 'pre-install before the game is 'live' so they have to wait until 'midnight' to install before they can play.

Being online only, even if you get the disc before the 25th, you can't access the game until its 'live'. However if you pre-order digitally (or intend to play on Game Pass) on Console or through the Windows Store on PC (rather than through Steam or Battle.net), you can pre-load from 21st Oct ready to play as soon as it goes 'live' in your region...

Anything could sell out quickly if there is more demand than stock but as we have no idea how much 'stock' is allocated for each region, no-one knows whether its selling out (or not) because of stock or demand.

What I mean is that if Sony only makes 50 units for the UK market (before launch), and 100 people want to buy it, it will sell out but if they allocated 1000 units but only 500 'pre-order', it would look like its not that popular with multiple stores likely having stock and still taking pre-orders - but in reality, its actually more popular than the first scenario (50 units but 100 people trying to buy) as it has 5x the number of people trying to buy. This is only meant to illustrate the situation - more demand than stock vs more stock than demand.

We don't know whether Sony are drip feeding 'stock' so demand seems high (if pre-orders are selling out). If they don't have many in stock or won't have by release, then it doesn't take much 'demand' to sell out. Only 50 units mean that if 60+ want to buy, it will sell out but with 2000units, if only 1500 want to buy, they'll still have 500 in stock to accept more orders.

We really don't know whether selling out is down to low stock or very high demand - just like you can't say not selling out is a 'bad' sign - it maybe they were able to manufacture enough stock to meet the demand - expect to get 2m pre-orders but only sell 1.95m - it won't 'sell out'.

10/10 - not too shabby...

@Flaming_Kaiser Again - from MY perspective, NO game is worth more than £50 - whether that is Full price or sale price. Yes I may have paid £50+ on N64 but at the time Cartridges were costing £30-35 to manufacture and were built into 'hardware' so I won't accept that argument and now games a=have little/no distribution or manufacturing costs as the vast majority buy Digitally.

When I can buy games like the Witcher 3 - Complete Edition for under £20 for example, arguably one of the best games released or pick up many other AAA games for under £30 - less than half the price they launched at often within a year of release, no game is worth paying 'more' just because its a 'new' release....

Unless its a Sony Exclusive, most games are cheaper on PC for a 'better' game as you can play at higher Frame Rates and higher graphical settings. Games haven't got 'better' to play in general -the same game-play loops we had a decade or more ago, now just look more impressive. The stories, the game-play etc haven't improved. So many remasters too hold up today because the game-play and story are still great.

As I said, each to their own but I don't think any game is worth more than £50 at most and I'd pay that much for a Complete edition, polished and complete at launch...

In my opinion, Games are not worth the asking price at launch - even if they were 'finished, complete and polished', I wouldn't pay more more than £50 for a game - it will be on sale (especially on Disc in some cases) and/or much more likely to be 'finished, complete and as 'polished' as its likely to get on the Hardware.

Ubisoft games in particular feel so generic and whilst they may look great, they also seem somewhat repetitive to play too. It feels copy, pasted and reskinned for new game content. They also have big sales expectations, then when they don't sell 'big' numbers, they drop quickly in price to 'sell' and of course they have their own Sub Service too which will affect sales as well.

With a massive Backlog of games - not actually helped by Backwards Compatibility as that adds all those Last gen Games I have to finish as well. Not only that, Last gen games are still 'great' and also 'cheap' now in sales. Not only that, with Sub Services offering games to play, even if not adding something 'new' that week/month you really want to play, they have 100's of games to try instead of paying £70 to be disappointed at launch...

Now I have 100's of games I can fill my limited Gaming time with right now without having to spend anything. If I never bought a game again, I still have more hours of gaming in my backlog that I wouldn't need to replay any game and still wouldn't run out of games. Therefore, I don't 'need' to add to my backlog, I can also wait until it becomes cheap enough that I want to jump in - I still haven't bought Avatar or Hogwarts Legacy - but both are on my watch list to buy for the right price.

Each to their own of course but nowadays, I prefer to wait and try to keep up to date on patches, updates, content drops etc and prices so I can decide if I think its at the right time and at the right price to jump in - and unless its a 'complete' (inc DLC - like a Special/Gold/Premium edition), I won't pay £50, let alone more, for any game.

You may OWN a disc and its case - physical objects you can hold but you don't own the Software that's on it and its just a 'licence' that's on the disc that you do own which, like a digital game/licence, can be revoked at any time.

Its no different in essence - you don't own the game whether you buy Physical or Digital. The disc is just a 'delivery' system to get the Software to the Customer, just like Downloading, so that the Software is installed and accessible on the Customers hardware.

However, the 'key' to access is the Licence. With Digital, that is stored and locked to your 'digital' Profile but with Physical, that is stored on Disc requiring you to put the disc in to open the door to the software to play. Without the disc, the software installed on your Hardware is unplayable because you don't own the Software, don't have the 'license' to play.

Its the same with PS+ games - you have the License as long as you remain Subscribed but as soon as you let PS+ lapse, all those games they gave you 'free' become unplayable, not yours to play anymore - your conditional license, the condition being you have to have at least PS+ Essential subscription to play the Software and without that license, access is revoked

Access is 'revoked' if you damage, lose or sell your Game Disc - it is required as it has the License Key on it. Lose access to your digital account, you can't play ANY of 'your' games and whilst you may be able to access the games on disc as they have the license on disc, they don't save your progress etc - they don't have your 'game', your character you created etc.

Physical doesn't preserve games - if you want to play in the future, chances are it will be 'locked' to a generation (like PS4 games) and if your hardware doesn't have a Disc Drive, you lose access unless you 'keep' your PS4 or buy a compatible Disc Drive.

from my perspective, there are 'similarities' - but the game isn't the same as Pokemon - its as different as Doom and Call of Duty. Both Doom and CoD are First Person Shooter, both have very similar shooting mechanics, both have similarities and they all copy the hands/gun at the bottom centre style, often with Map top Left and Ammo bottom right. These have more in common than Palworld, which also borrows from minecraft with Resource gathering/building and 'Pals' are often not used to 'battle' like Pokemon, but to do some of the chores etc at your 'base' leading to a very different Game-play loop...

Bought both Bungie and this Studio - so far it seems they really have 'improved' Sony and their reputation.

Obviously there are a LOT of costs involved - not just the staff wages for the time they worked on this, but ll the voice work, studio costs (electricity, water, rates etc) marketing - and merch (Maybe a cancelled toy line now or even cartoon series LOL). The PS5 Pro Concord Special Edition and/or Controllers etc etc...

Who knows whatever they spent, inc marketing that they likely pulled at great cost, the TV adverts you'll not see but cost a lot to make. If they thought this was the Future for Playstation, you never know how 'big' they may of gone on Marketing and TV costs across the world on top of the 'cost' of developers time - their Wages for the years. Often the Actual devs that make the game are the lowest paid in the chain - unless you count the cleaners of the studio that add to the Studio costs to keep it open and running every week...

Didn't they join the Sony Family of Studios only last year?

It makes sense - certain aspects really don't scale with 'graphics'. Turning down the resolution has no impact on the amount of AI on screen for example so it still has the same cost to process the AI.

Often we saw 'Performance' modes on the PS4 Pro that were 'unlocked' from 30fps and may hit '60' in certain situations, but more often than not, would often drop below 50, even below 40 in most intense moments when you need high frame rates the most.

With a 10% boost to CPU, if a game is CPU limited to 55fps at worst, it could be enough to get a Consistent' 60fps (or around 27.5 fps for a locked 30fps). Anything below and you'll likely get some dropped frames - but also, if they keep their VRR range to 48fps+, some games (those that drop to 44fps for example) would likely sit in that VRR window better too...

Consoles have always been 30fps if the game is 'pushing' gaming technology forward. Yes you could have 60fps games that 'look' like last gen games with the same 'visual' detail, style and methods but that's why we've had 60fps games this gen.

Its the 'next' gen games that are 30fps on release and, if they can reduce the Visual Quality (often 1080p or lower with reduced quality Shadows etc) enough, then you may get an 'unlocked' 60fps mode that will often drop below the 60fps target. Most of the reason these games don't hit 60fps, its the CPU that's bottlenecking. Reducing the res to 540p or even 480p wouldn't see any frame rate gains because its a CPU limitation...

It makes sense in the fact the PS5 is around the $500 and hasn't dropped in price, in fact actually gone up in some regions since launch, that the PS5 Pro is that expensive.

If they had built it to target $100 more than a PS5, it wouldn't have the 'specs' to make enough of a difference. Therefore they opted to keep it under $700 by removing the disc drive as well. However, the fact that they decided to build to a $700 price point is more the issue when Consoles are traditionally the $300 low cost mass market entry point for gamers and $700 is close to PC pricing. An nvidia RTX4070ti is around that price with DLSS 3.0.

When consoles cost $300, paying $500 just for a PC GPU made consoles seem like the best bang for buck - but now it seems Consoles are becoming more expensive - after all, you are 'expected' to Subscribe on a Console (a minimum of $80 a year) to play online, access all content in games you've paid to play. If you intend to keep playing for 5yrs, that's an additional $400 required too.

I dislike the PS5 and its design - that includes the 'original' as well as its redesign. I knew that this console would not be $600 or less - with a Disc Drive as they can't reduce the PS5 to $300 - the price point of Consoles before the advent of 'Pro' Premium consoles around $500

There is no way I'd pay more than $500 for a Console that doesn't exactly have any games I can't play on my PS5 and it seems that I could play at 60fps if I choose with some graphical cutbacks. Although, if it ends up in the bedroom, it will be on a 1080p TV anyway.

The point of a console wasn't to compete with the high-end PC's on graphics and performance - they were meant to be affordable products for mass market access to gaming. This gen, they jumped straight to 'premium' pricing and this is 'PC' pricing to me - and these games will likely release and/or run better on some PC's, especially those with DLSS to rival PSSR.

Each to their own of course, but for me, I can't justify that price, and its not helped by its form factor or lack of Disc Drive to play the PS5 games I have bought for my PS5 just to take the choice between Performance and Quality mode away essentially on games that don't look 'terrible' from normal TV viewing distances and I've never played a '30fps' game from Sony - whether it was Spider-man or Horizon: Zero Dawn on PS4 - or other PS4 era games.

I can wait for the PS6 when it has BC for all the PS4 and PS5 games, many of which will have been 'updated' for first PS5 and now for 'Pro' to - maybe then some of those will be able to run at 'native' 4k and 60fps or even 4k/120fps with AI upscaling....

Well I think of the games they no longer make as their 'style' of games became more similar. Take their First Person Shooters - games like Killzone and Resistance that are no longer around. Instead, everything is 3rd Person in that very ''Naughty Dog' style.

Its also not helped that studios are taking so much longer to make games. Naughty Dog had 3 Uncharted and the Last of Us games released during the PS3 era but only 2 since - U4 and LoU2. SuckerPunch too only released 2 games during the PS4 era - Infamous and Ghost of Tsushima. Since releasing Killzone as a launch title over a decade ago, we've had two Horizon games roughly 5yrs apart.

If you were to ask me what I would have thought Sony's policy had been, it was to focus on those 3rd Person Action Adventure cinematic style games they found success with and make deals with 3rd Party Publishers to make the games they had 'less' success with - hence making deals with Activision for CoD whilst ditching Killzone/Resistance, making deals with SE for Japanese favourites so they don't need to make their own etc...

A few years ago $70 would be the Maximum any game would 'cost' by the time you've bought the game and whatever Season Pass for all the DLC - now the 'base' game with Copy/paste mechanics is $70 with more stripped out content that is in the special edition or will be added in season 3 content coming a few months after launch.

Point is that Games haven't just got more expensive, but they've also found numerous other ways of monetising. A game back on the PS3 would feel much more 'complete' with any thought of DLC coming post launch if demand warranted. It would come with ALL the Characters, Camos, Cosmetics etc and DLC was optional, a Map pack expanding the number of Maps in a MP mode that was secondary to a decent Single Player mode...

Now it feels like you get a very 'bare bones' experience unless you spend well over the entry fee. Games have multiple 'seasons' now a year - look at CoD, a Season Pass would be for ALL DLC, now its for a few months with 'less' content bumped out by more cosmetics...

With Sales inc Games from Last Gen thanks to Backwards Compatibility, as well as 'compulsory' Sub services with 'free' games (both PS+ essential and Game Pass Core offer access to free games), there are thousands of playable games on Consoles. You can buy older PS4 AAA games for a LOT less and even some PS5 games are now cheap.

Point is, with thousands of 'playable' games already on PS5, thanks to BC, you don't need to buy the latest releases. For £70, you could buy 3 or more AAA games in a sale instead of the latest 'bare-bones' release....

And people still think a PS5 Pro will still come in for around $500 mark when y can't even reduce the price of the PS5. That after this generation launched with $500 console instead of targeting the $300 'console' price point we have come to expect...

This is more an indication of rising costs and exchange rates that mean they can't sell it for 'less'. With increased costs of Shipping the consoles globally for example, that cost is passed onto the customer and all the raw materials aren't getting cheaper either.

This is the first Console generation I can recall though that has had price increases. Its not just Sony - but also Microsoft recently raised prices in Japan because of these factors.

Where is the option for 'No, I'm a Fan of the games but still not interested in the movie'?

I own all the Borderlands main games (not tales from) and Tiny Tina's Wonderlands - spent hundreds of hours playing them but no interest in the movie!

MS would have sold off the Studio and Hi-fi Rush IP - which I guess was too much trouble to keep open and supported in 'Japan' when all their other studios are based in the US/EU.

Hi-Fi Rush may have been a critical success, but it wasn't that 'popular' on Xbox or Game Pass ad even when sold on Playstation, couldn't outsell Grounded, Sea of Thieves or even old Fallout games. It was 'nowhere' in the Charts - both of which may well of contributed to Tango's closure.

Another aspect is the fact Mikami left. It maybe like buying Kojima Productions because of 'Kojima' more so than 'Death Stranding', but then he leaves and your left with a 'different' studio with different ideas that maybe aren't what you wanted. They may still own the Evil Within for example, but don't have the creator of it anymore to make those type of games.

MS, or more ABK group have opened 2 new Studios (Infinity Ward Austin and Elsewhere Entertainment in Poland) as well as formed a team in Blizzard to work on 'smaller' games too. Logistically easier than having 1 studio the other side of the world.

Point is, there could be numerous factors in why they chose to close and then found a buyer for Tango and the 'Hi-fi Rush' IP which obviously works for Krafton. MS may have bought Zenimax for id Software, Bethesda, Machine Games, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Fallout, Elder Scrolls and all the Publishing rights but also had to take Tango, Hifi Rush and Redfall - Hifi Rush launched with no marketing and was just dropped into Game Pass so maybe didn't expect it to be a critical success...

@Leechmonger_DeS Well they now own Doom - one of the biggest names in video gaming history - as well as Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dishonoured etc as well as all the Publishing rights for those games.

They may have bought Zenimax as a 'job lot' - a bundle and wanted all the above, but the rest were not 'important' to them - even less so when they added ABK group of Studios. With Mikami gone from Tango, that maybe like acquiring Kojima Productions to have 'Kojima', only for Kojima to leave soon after.

1 studio was a support studio to Zenimax Online so got merged, MS has numerous Austin based studios to so maybe decided to close one to ensure they are well staffed. 1 was set up to make 'mobile' only games - now they have King for that and Tango was logistically difficult as their only Japanese Studio.

However, since acquiring ABK, they have opened 2 'new' Studio's - 1 in Austin (Infinity Ward Austin - so maybe some of Arkane staff were moved) and another in Poland (Elsewhere Studios). Not only that, they have also created a new team at Blizzard to make games as well...

The fact is that if you buy Fallout 3 for example, because MS own the Publishing rights, the IP etc, they'll get money from that same as if you buy Doom or Wolfenstein, Quake or Dishonored, Prey or Skyrim. Those are MS owned IP's. Halo is an MS owned IP too despite Bungie, its creators, now at Sony. IP's and Publishing is where the 'money' is - not Studios. 3rd Party Studios can also be 'hired' to work on IP's...

Of course it doesn't make sense that a Publisher like Take Two who rely on 'Sales' for their Revenue to put their game into another Publishers Sub Service.

Its not just Game Pass that offers Day 1 games - it maybe the only one right now that also offers 3rd Party developed and/or published games, but EA Play (PC) offers Day 1 games and Ubisoft+ too offers Day 1 games. If Take Two had their own Sub service, maybe they'll offer Day 1.

Those 3rd Party Publishers are already 'helping' the console Platform holders by releasing on their Platform. Sony/MS will make money from every game sold - especially through their store as the only digital 'retailer'. They have to pay to release on another 'owned/locked' platform with '30%' of their sales revenue going to the Platform holder. A $200m+ 3rd Party game would need to sell more to break even than a first party release - hence Sony making so much money from Call of Duty for example.

I wouldn't expect it to be 'right' for Take Two to put their Games 'Day 1' into EA Play or Ubisoft+, but maybe one day will have their own Sub Service to generate their own subscription based revenue stream, not rely purely on Sales...

As they bought the Studio that was also a Publisher with their own Publishing Rights and of course own their Destiny IP, that purchase can instantly start making money for Soney.

Every sale of Game, of Cosmetics etc all went to the 'Publisher' which is Bungie, now owned by Sony so instantly started making money back. It's possible its made that money back over the years now they've owned Bungie.

When they bought Insomniac for example for a LOT less, they didn't get many IP's and certainly no Publishing rights they can make money from. They did at least have publishing rights and games to sell to recuperate virtually immediately with Spider-Man and R&C - but just buying a 'Studio' is a LOT cheaper because they don't own Publishing rights and/or may need to invest 'more' time/money into that Studio until they have product to sell...

That's the big difference between buying a 'Publisher' versus just buying a Studio - and Bungie after leaving Activision were not only a 'Studio' but also Publisher with the Publishing Rights to Destiny. So every game and every MTX sale from Day 1 started making money for Sony. It's the same with Zenimax/ABK for MS, as soon as those deals went through, they started making money. Doesn't matter that Fallout 4 was released before the deal, you buy that today, that's money for MS and despite Square Enix selling Crystal Dynamics and Tomb Raider IP, they still have Publishing rights on the 'old' games. The new owners of CD/TR won't make money on them until they have new products out to sell...

As such, it's a very difficult question to answer. On the one hand, it looks like a mistake, but on the other, it could also have made money and Sony do 'own' the Destiny IP which makes money on 'Xbox' too...

The biggest Problems are that it so 'generic' and the game-play, whether 'Good' or not, is not different enough from all the FREE to Play games on the market that people have Invested time and money on 'Cosmetics' etc that it needed to be something 'special' and 'different' enough to warrant the barrier to entry...

The thing about Resistance and Killzone is that they were 'different' from CoD and Halo yet still had some commonality. At the time, these games too weren't monetised for 'Cosmetics' or XP boosts, weren't monetised with season passes and drip fed 'new' weapons to add to a 'sparse' starting collection and Cosmetics were earned by playing the game, doing the challenges etc.

Point is, these types of games should be Free to Play - unless they are 'Special', Unique and come with some Single Player content too. If its going to be 'monetised' with Seasonal content, then it has to be F2P to compete with F2P games that have been doing that for years.

Overwatch 2 has 'lost' much of its crowd and I can't see people wanting to play an alternative... Its about 8yrs too late...

Not everyone is created 'equally' and what maybe 'easy' mode for 1 person could be extremely difficult for another so I have no issues with games looking to be 'accessible' to as many people as possible and enable the player to decide how much of a 'Challenge' the game poses.

Whilst I do 'respect' the decision of FromSoftware for example to make the game they want at the 'difficulty' level they have, I do think that it also affects its accessibility. I wonder how many have bought their Games as they 'looked' interesting, a world they wanted to explore, but were put off and felt like they wasted their time/money? I personally don't think it would 'hurt' their games to have Difficulty sliders as those who want the Challenge won't be affected, maybe earn Trophies to 'brag' about beating it at its most challenging.

Someone with years of Experience in playing Souls-Like games will probably think these games are not that difficult compared to someone playing for the first time. It's often the Hardcore, most able gamers that 'complain' about accessibility and difficulty settings, even though it doesn't really affect their ability to play on the hardest, most challenging modes.

@PuppetMaster I made figures up for pure illustration purposes. The fact it made money in month 1-4 is not going to factor in for future months. Its 'profit' for month 1, 2, 3 and 4 but if month 5 doesn't make profit because its lost the playerbase, they aren't going to keep making content for another 2 yrs unless they can get players back or get the numbers up to be 'profitable' every month.

With AA, they could go as low as 500 players a month and this game may not drop that low in 2yrs. But if they require 30k, but only get 28k, next month, it may cost 35k and only get 15k as numbers drop, next month another 35k but only get 12k. They'll likely 'stop' rather than keep losing money. It doesn't matter that month 1 or 2 was 'ultra' profitable - its more money to invest in products/service to 'make' more money.

Its what the game status is like today, not at launch or the first few months. They aren't going to spend money on making 'new' content if that doesn't bring 'more' money back, its better to stop making content, stop losing money on supporting something that 'not enough players' will buy/play when they can spend that time money on something else that is making money.

As soon as you start having to spend more money than you have coming back, that's the time these 'Live Service' games tend to stop being 'supported' as Live Service - doesn't mean the Servers get turned off and the game is unplayable, it just means that its no longer 'profitable' to keep making 'new' content.

What I meant is the success or Profit they made in month 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 'irrelevant' to the decision to keep producing 'content' or whatever 'internal' Roadmap. If the Gamers aren't there to buy that content, that it starts 'losing' money per month instead of being Profitable as it was in months 1-8 for example, if month 9 loses money because gamers have 'left', even after trying to inject 'new' players by putting it on PS+, then they'll not make Content for another 14months because they 'planned' 24 months of Content. As soon as it stops being Profitable on a 'monthly basis', then it ends because they'd rather have the Profit money than 'lose' some it making content few will buy/play.

@PuppetMaster The point still stands though regardless of its status. Its 'success' in sales and initial popularity may help the devs go on to make a third for Sony, but its likely considered as 'Profit' and higher than they expected. Doesn't mean they'll 'throw' that profit away into making content when it loses money (again not saying its losing money either).

Being a AA game may just mean the Threshold for monthly revenue coming in is a lot lower. Maybe they only need say 30k a month instead of 150k a month to keep producing content but if that revenue 'drops' below 30k, they aren't going to keep spending 30k on new content until that 'profit' they made is used up.

Maybe they'll do a Month or two more if it starts losing money (say 30k in costs, but only getting 15k in revenue) but unless they see growth and/or profitability month after month, the fact it sold more than expected, made 'more' profit than expected, won't mean they'll keep making content indefinitely until that 'profit' is gone. It will still be judged on its monthly income vs out goings and if its costing 'more' to make content than is coming in from 'dwindling' playerbase, then they'll stop supporting this and use that 'Profit' to develop their next game.

If it can survive with just 500 monthly paying players as that is all they 'need' to cover the Cost of the monthly content, having 45k is not 'panic stations' even if that is a 'big drop' in users. Doesn't mean the game is going to end in the next month or two - not that I ever said it does mean the end.

Al I said is there is a threshold for Live Service games and that is usually the point at which the game stops being Profitable at all and starts 'losing money'. It maybe that it costs 30k a month to keep bringing new content and now its only generating 28k a month from its remaining players. The fact it made 500m in profit one month is irrelevant to keeping the game supported - that's probably been reinvested elsewhere, maybe even reserved to pay the studio to develop their next game for the next 4-5 yrs. Unless they bring 'new' players in and see that revenue jump above 30k for example into 'profit', then they'll 'end' monthly new content as its 'losing' money and eating into that 'profit'.

Its basic Live Service Business Model. Doesn't matter if it made 500m, then maybe 300m, then maybe 100m, if it starts to 'lose' money, they'll stop bringing 'new' content. It will cease to be a Live Service and just become an 'online' game that people can buy/play as the Devs move on to their next game - which could be 'larger' in scope because of the success and profit of HD2

HD2 will have its threshold where the 'new' content cannot be 'sustained' by the amount of Gamers spending money in that game. If its costing more to provide 'new' content than they get in, they won't eat away their 'profits', its a sign to move on. Again not saying HD2 is at that threshold YET and could well be quite a way from that point yet despite losing 90% (could lose another 90% and still be Profitable as a AA) but there is a threshold

@PuppetMaster I used this - whether accurate or not https://ps-timetracker.com/statistic/last-30-days

You are missing the point about 'Live' service and continuing to bring 'new' content to that game. It needs a certain amount of revenue coming in every month to keep the Developers making new content for it every month.

Games like Helldivers may remain 'playable', but the Devs moved on from that years ago. Games like BF1 or Modern Warfare 2 are NO longer Active Live Service Games as the devs moved on from those to 'new' games, the 'live support' of new content has stopped and are just 'online' games - not Live Service if the 'service' of bringing new content has ceased.

'Live service' and 'online' game is not the same thing. Live Service promises to bring new content on a regular basis, requiring ongoing development of that content bringing something 'new'. MW2 is no longer getting 'new' content, no new Cosmetics, no Season Passes, no 'new' maps/modes etc because its no longer the 'live' service CoD game - its been 'replaced' by MW3. MW2 remains playable and 'online', but its no longer a 'Live Service', its now just an 'online' game that remains playable.

Not every Live Service also has to turn its servers off the instance it stops being supported as a 'Live' service. They can decide the game is 'finished' and no longer going to spend time and money on creating new content. So players can keep playing, but won't get new maps, modes etc.

Those 12m sales won't necessarily mean they'll keep making content indefinitely until the money runs out. That will be 'Profit', Money they used to invest in 'new' games etc. It will most likely come down to how much they are spending 'each' month on new Content and how much revenue they bring in. If they spend 100k a month, but only bring in 50k a month, they won't keep doing that month after month until all the 'money' they earned in the release months has all gone. They'll likely decide that its time to move on to their 'next' game and cease bringing 'new' content to HD2 - but won't necessarily mean the servers will be 'turned' off. It stops being a 'Live Service' and just becomes an 'online' game with NO new content etc coming.

As a business, you look forward. Is it bringing in enough monthly revenue to keep making content? if yes, no problem, if 'No', then you either look at increasing 'revenue' (inject more players or more revenue options) or end 'ongoing Live Service support' and move on to your 'next' project. Again doesn't mean ending the online servers, just ending the supply of 'new' content.

CoD gets round that by having Annual releases. MW3 is the 'Live Service' game, the ONLY game that will get 'new' content (maps, Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc). MW2 is 'still' playable, but you can't complete the Season Pass playing MW2 content, won't get new maps/modes etc, and buying new Cosmetic Bundles won't let you use them in MW2. MW2 'stopped' being a Live Service and is now just an 'online' game...

@AdamNovice I wasn't the one bringing CoD/Apex to the discussion and like EVERY live service, there is still a 'cost' to bringing new content on a regular basis and still requires an ongoing revenue stream.

All I said is that its a 'numbers' game - enough still playing, enough still spending money, the game will be OK but if numbers drop below a certain point, it becomes unsustainable. I don't know what that 'point' is for HD2 but both Sony and Arrowhead will want their 'profit'. That could be as low as 10k players every month with the money they spend 'enough' to sustain the game so 40k+ is not an issue at all but a game like CoD may need 50k minimum with its 'costs' due to Studio size etc.

But the principal still remains - they won't keep making content if the numbers don't make sense. A Live service is only going to remain live whilst the numbers make sense. If the playerbase continues to drop in the next months, it could cross that thresh-hold to be 'unsustainable' without injecting some new 'players' and/or new revenue options.

Its the Live Service business model. Monthly income is required to pay for the new content and if that income drops below 'profitability won't mean they'll continue operating on a 'monthly' loss. Its 'success' may have brought higher Profits, but doesn't mean they'll use the 'Profit' to keep creating content at a 'loss' every month because its costing 'more' to create content etc than the money they are getting in. If they need 20k players a month and a revenue of at least 100k a month, that is the Threshholds they cannot 'sustain' a Live Service game below and rather than start 'losing' money, losing Profit, its often the time Live Service games 'end'...

And that goes for games like Halo:Infinite too which will also have a minimum threshold point too - as long as that game has enough players and income, they'll continue adding Seasons with Season Passes bringing in enough revenue to 'sustain' itself. If the numbers drop so they don't get the revenue, you'll likely hear that H:I's next Seasonal update will be the 'last'.

@crossbit @PsBoxSwitchOwner Difference with CoD though is that it has a NEW cycle every year so as one game 'drops' off, they have another coming that will sell like crazy and start a 'new' cycle. Its also supported by Warzone (a free to play game that also sells cosmetics, season passes etc to bring 'revenue' in to keep the cycle going. So whilst CoD MW3 maybe 'losing' players over time, a lot are playing 'Warzone' until Black Ops 6 and do jump into MW3 for 'new' seasonal content. Also with 'CoD', you'll have some that may buy for Single Player so will 'leave' after completing but will still buy the 'new' CoD.

Fortnite and Apex are constantly having new seasons and 'sustaining' themselves year after year after year. These are self sustaining because they continuously have enough players and revenue every month to continue. As people leave, new players are coming in...

Helldivers 2 maybe like 'CoD' in that player numbers drop, but CoD is traditionally an 'annual' release. In other words, before the numbers 'drop' below sustainability, there is a 'new' game on the market. They have 'stopped' supporting MW2 because MW3 is out and MW3 will 'stop' because BO6 will be out.

For 'HD2' to copy, they'd need HD3 out a year later, HD4 a year after that so Sales and annual injection of new players etc all keep the cycle going. HD2 is more like a Marvels Avengers where the player base it attracted was meant to sustain it but they couldn't 'keep' players or get 'new' players in to replace 'lost' players until it became unsustainable - would cost more to keep it going for the remaining players than the 'revenue' coming in.

That's a 'Live service' - whether its a Paid for or Free to Play. They need to be making enough money to keep bringing new content monthly, need a 'minimum' playerbase to make the game 'function' and spending enough to keep developers making content for it. Whilst CoD may also not sustain the Launch numbers over time, it still remains in the Top 5 most played and still is in the top 10 sales, still selling season passes, cosmetic bundles etc to 'sustain' it too

I don't know what HD2's bottom line is after losing 90% of players on Steam and seemingly not in the top 30 on PS either but may still be enough to sustain it for the time being. If those that remain are still spending enough money to sustain the 'work' on new content etc to keep the game going, great!. But if they don't or can't keep spending money, that then becomes unsustainable.

Say they need 100k a month and their 50k players are spending an avg $2 a month, its breaking even - but if it drops to 25k a month, and/or those remaining aren't spending at least $4 a month, its not sustainable. You either need 'more' players in or the remaining players spending more on average to break even, let alone make money...

An injection of Players, either by releasing on more Platforms or by offering on PS+ for example, can boost the numbers and/or revenue. Other live service games - like CoD will release a 'new' game every year so numbers don't fall below unsustainability numbers...

For a live service game, you expect growth not loss, where people come to play the game and stay for the content. If it's the other way round, as in start great and dwindle away over time, then you don't have growth, don't have the users in that game to sustain it, to pay for new content. etc

Going from over 450k average to just 45k average is a 90% reduction or just 10% remain - is that enough to keep the game going? Keep on making content for at cost when fewer and fewer players remain.

That is 'Steam' only but look at the Playstation most played games, it's not in the top 30 for June.

At some point, either it needs an 'injection' of new players that will bump the numbers and 'development' fund to continue or drop too low it becomes 'unsustainable' to continue...

We don't have the 'truth' and until someone does come forward and explain why, then its likely to people will speculate and/or make up conspiracies.

What we do know is that this is a UE5 game being developed by a new Studio with little/no experience of porting to Console. Sony only have the '1' spec and with the 'majority' share, may have more 'Priority' to Optimise and ensure releases the same 'day'. Its 'easier' to optimise for 1 'spec' requiring less time/money. Not only that, Playstation has the largest user base to 'sell' to, thus make most money so takes 'priority' - maybe even 'assisted' by Sony.

Xbox has the Series S which may take a lot more 'work' optimising for and they don't have the time/resources to optimise for both that and Series X whilst also finishing the game for PC/PS5. All that extra work that may not see as many 'returns' due to lower install base.

Another 'out' there theory of course is that Sony is planning to release the PS5 Pro and this 'could' be one of those launch titles. Maybe its not Sony at all, but the 'partner' in question is Epic Games for example but everyone assumes its Sony...

Part of me thinks that the Series S isn't really the Problem - its just easy to blame. It could be inexperience with the Engine or the optimisation process as none are using the Hardware to its 'fullest', not using Multi-threading performance, not using the feature set fully etc. PC's too range from the high-end down to below Series S specs. On the other, its proven to be 'difficult' to deliver parity before...

No doubt we may find out the truth - maybe not until after its launched. It could be the Series S or it could be they didn't have the 'resources' because the Xbox doesn't have the install base to dedicate more time/money to...

Whilst I don't play these games, I can see that perspective. You don't dumb down Formula 1 so everyone can 'participate' for example.

On the other hand, I can see it from a Customer perspective too who may want to 'play' the game but having spent money, now can't play everything because its just too 'difficult'. That's their 'money' wasted.

Other games have 'brutal' and 'unforgiving' difficulty settings, so why can't these type of games have 'lower' difficulty? If its about a sense of Achievement, then make a Trophy associated with beating it on a certain Difficulty - Trophy hunters and braggers still have that 'badge of honour' for beating the game on its hardest (normal) mode, but at least others don't feel like they've wasted their money.

The other option is to come with a warning about the difficulty, that its designed in a way that many probably won't ever finish the game - 25m Sold but how many actually finished it.

I don't really know what the answer is - Difficulty will mean something different to everyone and what maybe Challenging for some, could be easy for others. That whole 'get good' mentality too doesn't work because some have other 'challenges' to overcome - like playing with disabilities or physical difficulties for example. Therefore I think it makes sense to have Difficulty sliders so everyone can get a sense of achievement...

@NEStalgia On the whole PC & Pricing, there is also nothing stopping you from upgrading as and when you want/need. You could start with a PS5+ XSX cost PC that 'beats' those and has DLSS too. Then of course, do you play on a 4k or 1440p monitor? Then targeting 1440p instead of 4k, you can turn the settings up higher or target higher Frame rates too.

Then as time goes by, you can upgrade maybe the CPU because your more CPU limited to get the frame rates you want even with DLSS doing the 'heavy lifting' to make it look good. A few years later, maybe the GPU and by then, you've got a PS6/NextBox beater that can play a far wider range of games - no worries really about 'preservation' or whether or not one Console has 'better' PQ or more Consistent frame rates that still won't match your PC....

It's just whether or not you can wait to play the Games that Sony chooses to bring or would rather play them 'first' on Console. If you don't have a PC, then maybe the games you get to play first and can subscribe to Game Pass to play those 'at no extra cost' is enough to tempt people to Xbox even if some of those 'exclusives' eventually end on Playstation. For some it might, for others they'll still prefer Playstation and happy to wait for whatever MS chooses to release there and pay whatever it costs to play it.

MS made it clear that their 'Console' is just one of their 'MS Windows' based platforms you can play their games on so anyone with a Windows based gaming device, like a PC, has no reason to spend £500+ on Consoles and online Subscriptions (both require a minimum Subscription fee for Online gaming) when their PC will play everything the Xbox will - even if its not quite at the same level, its still not worth buying a console over maybe upgrading and saving you that console + ongoing online console Subscription fee. If they have to buy 'a' console for games, its not going to be the Xbox so they've cut their 'market' and basically given that to the 'PC' gamers who want to play everything they want to 'first'. PC and PS5 and/or Switch. Xbox is for those who don't/won't PC game and/or wants to play Xbox console exclusives 'first' or via Game Pass as its better than Cloud streaming.

@CrashBandicoat But they aren't! They have no plans to release Perfect Dark, Indiana Jones or Fable on PS5 day/date so these games ARE 'exclusive' (at least on Consoles) to the Xbox. Games like Flight Sim, Starfield, HB2 etc are still 'exclusive' and even if they do release on PS5 in a year or so, those games aren't selling Xbox consoles, probably not selling on Xbox anymore as they are 'old' news - so much like Sony's PC strategy - they can release these 'elsewhere' to extract revenue from Gamers outside your 'user' base that boosts your income and ability to invest in your own products/services.

Starfield isn't selling Consoles or Game Pass Subscriptions today as such. Those that really wanted to play would have jumped in when that game released (or the weeks after). MS will be looking at their 'new' releases - MSFS24, Stalker 2, Avowed and Indiana Jones (maybe even CoD too now) to get people to buy an Xbox and/or sub to Game Pass to play 'day/date'.

Sony choose not to bring their games at all to 'Xbox' - maybe because they don't want to give MS 30% of their 'revenue' to release on that Platform, maybe because they don't think Xbox gamers will 'buy' a PS5 to play 'Day 1', don't think the 'work' porting and supporting post release will 'benefit' their revenue, their PR and/or 'brand; enough to justify it. How many PS gamers would lose their mind if Sony brought Spider-Man to Xbox - even if that is now 'old news', a 'PS4' era game not selling much on their own hardware or selling Consoles anymore...

MS's policy could be VERY similar to Sony's - keep all Single Player and/or new IP's exclusive (even if timed for a year or more) to get people in to that Platform but release multi-platform 'IP's' - especially Live Service/online community games Day/Date to maximise revenue potential and grow massive online Communities that allow friends/families to play together regardless of 'hardware' choices...

Of course MS will continue releasing 'some' of their Games Day 1 on Playstation. Since acquiring Mojang, everything that Studio has released since has remained multi-platform and we already know that Call of Duty too will release Day/Date. Doom, another 'multi-platform' IP that's on basically everything, is also coming in the future. It's not just CoD, but I expect Diablo and Overwatch to remain multi-platform IP's.

Whether or not games like Starfield or Hellblade 'eventually' release on Playstation, that's 'no different' from Sony eventually releasing Spider-Man or GoW on PC. Once those titles aren't selling Consoles or Game units, put them on a Platform you don't own or have a store on to extract revenue from those gamers you couldn't tempt into your platform. With MS, that only leaves Playstation 'realistically' as Switch maybe too difficult to port to. Sony of course have PC, Xbox and/or Switch - although refuse to release on Xbox which is their decision to make.

After 6yrs or so, I doubt Sea of Thieves is selling Xbox consoles, selling Game Pass Subs and probably reached every gamer in the 'Xbox' ecosystem - the 'only' way to grow that community and get new gamers in is to release it to a 'new' audience and that only leaves Playstation.

It's Similar with games like Starfield or Hellblade 2 - although that's more about 'revenue' generated - which will be 'exhausted' on Xbox before they choose to bring them to PS, much like Sony does with their Single Player IP's. Once they have exhausted their revenue on Playstation, sell on PC to extract as much 'revenue' as possible...

I'd say that some of those games aren't 'mainstream' and the Live Service games they hope to appeal to Mainstream, but Mainstream gamers already have their 'live service' game they've invested time and (LOTS of) money in, games now with a LOT of content etc so aren't 'excited' by yet more trying to push in.

Others maybe were interested, but wouldn't be in their top 3 - whether that was because the trailers didn't show enough, other trailers being more 'exciting' or new/surprising so stood out more.

To be honest, I had zero interest in any of those games - inc Monster Hunter and Dragonage before the Summer Fest of Gaming shows, and the shows did nothing to change my mind. I can understand why AstroBot won on a PS site, it has more 'mass' appeal than most and it came as quite a surprise so stick in the memory most...

Why spend a small fortune on having 'space' on the showroom floor when they don't really have a lot to show, don't need the expense when they can reach their audience directly when they choose, and it's not as if they have to 'compete' for Console sales to get people to buy a Playstation when they are the 'dominant' Premium Console in Europe.

Sony will have a 'presence' just because the majority of games will likely release on Playstation. The biggest releases (in terms of Sales) of the Holiday season, the likes of EA's FC (was Fifa) and Madden, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Star Wars etc etc will all release day/date on PS5 anyway.

Much easier and cheaper to release a State of Play or a show when they want, to have a captive Playstation audience and reach their audience via Social media.

The vast majority won't be at Gamescom, they'll be using Social Media to watch a stream, relying on 'press' to give any 'hands on' preview/early impressions (just like this site has done with Black Myth). Therefore, why bother if you don't 'need' to....

And yet we keep hearing about how these new 'Game' engines will save so much 'developer' time creating their games. They don't need to make the same assets at a variety of different LoDs that will be substituted in at different draw distances, don't have to run RT on their environments only to then try and 'bake' in the Shadows etc, go in with point lighting etc to create the look of realistic lighting in that world, they can now use 'realistic' lighting in real time...

You can't tell me that Uncharted for example wasn't chasing realism in graphics and arguably Tomb Raider reboot with its more realistic Character models and facial animations was able to tell a better, more emotional and 'immersive' Story as a result.

I don't necessarily think Graphics always make a difference. Car Racing games for example have looked 'great' for years and it doesn't matter how more 'realistically' you make the rain react to light, or how many 'polygons' now make up a cars headlight, the Game-play itself hasn't really changed. That being said, I doubt any that play these aren't stunned by the Graphics, the photomodes that look like real photos or racing around tracks that 'look' more realistic with Crowds in stands etc. Whether that improves the 'moment to moment' Game-play, I guess depends on the person

I doubt Sony would be as well regarded if their Iconic AAA games like Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War etc would have had the 'impact' they did if they had been 'low' polygon games, maybe in a 'minecraft' like artstyle as I doubt the Characters, the animations - particularly facial, would have had the same emotional impact.

Video games aren't just a replacement for the 'games' people used to play - board games, indoor sports, etc. Pong was 'indoor' sports and games like Donkey Kong, Pac-Man would be a bit more like your Board Games - take it in turns to get the High Score. Story's were told more like a choose your own adventure book - with text.

Now a game can put you in the Shoes of someone suffering Psychosis, the voices they 'suffer' are now in your 'head', as close to you as they are to the lead character to give some the 'experience' of what living with Psychosis is like - but to another person, those voices are 'annoying' and not important - the challenge of Combat/Puzzle solving is most important despite the fact these are merely 'triggers' for the Voices.

As for TF's, It did make a difference - just look at the PS4 vs XB1. Sony had the higher TF's and that actually translated into a noticeable difference in the multi-platform games. How many times did Sony have higher resolution, higher graphical settings and/or higher average 'frame' rates. Even if they weren't chasing 60fps, they'd stick closer to, if not not hold 30fps better translating to a 'better' gaming experience. So even if people don't fully understand TF's, it proved more is better for hitting the 'standards' promised - 1080p (not 900p or lower), better looking shadows, or draw distances, more 'consistent' frame rates etc.

This interview mentions movies, but you don't go to a movie and have 'inconsistent' frame rates, inconsistent Frame Pacing, bugs or glitches that really stop you from progressing or mean you have to restart, terrible visual quality with tearing or annoying pop-in, graphical bugs that break the immersion etc etc. Gaming is much more an Audience participation media, its much more 'hands on' than sit back and 'be' entertained...

There were a number of games that I would say really stood out and surprised me with their trailers. Doom: The Dark Ages for example really stood out as it wasn't what I expected after it leaked, Perfect Dark too after reports of development hell.

I'd have to say that Black Ops 6 had perhaps some of the best Showing - opening a show and then having a Developer Direct show, Whether you play CoD or not, it had a lot of time dedicated to it so arguably the 'best' showing.

Some of the other games on this list had a lot less time - but another that really stood out was WuKong Black Myth but in fairness, most of the UE5 games look impressive, not necessarily games I'd play - especially Souls Like games...

If its 'outside' of the Top 10 games I'm playing right now, chances are I've moved on from any 'Live Service' game and couldn't care less new content is available. If I was 'excited' by said Live Service game, I'd be well aware of their 'next' Season or Content drop without needing more Clutter on the screen.

When I turn my Console on, I have a very good idea of what I want to be playing before the Console has booted up and I want to get in that game as Quickly as possible. I don't care about news, ads etc - I get enough of that from Social Media.

It would be a very Slimy thing to turn round and say the ONLY way to play Call of Duty going forward, now they 'own' the IP, would be via an Xbox or via Game Pass ONLY - Forcing players to Subscribe and/or buy Xbox consoles, just because they can because of some petty Console 'war'

At the end of the day, CoD gamers are fans of a MS owned IP and its better to treat them ALL equally than annoy a sub-section because of their Platform choice.

You may see it as 'meaningless' but when some are getting 'more' XP, therefore unlocking more gear and rewards for the 'same' activity, that is still 'unfair'. It was 'unfair' that DLC was released a month earlier on Xbox too of course.

At the end of the day, its still 'better' value on Xbox as you get the PC version if you Buy from MS or can play for 'free' with a Subscription. However, if you 'choose' to play on Playstation, you won't miss out, be forced to buy an Xbox or be forced to Subscribe to Game Pass to play

Its not totally a Sony IP as Lego themselves will expect a cut for using their 'Lego' IP too. As such, Sony would need to sell more to recoup their costs and make the 'same' profit.

Sony see Xbox as their ONLY competitor in the 'Premium' Console market so they are unlikely to want to release there - that only leaves PC/Nintendo to sell 'more' games on. Also, they hope that PC/Switch gamers will buy a Playstation 5 as their 'Premium' console of Choice because they are familiar with Horizon...

It's about maximising the Sales as Lego will take their cut too so Sony won't make as much 'per' game sold, so need to sell more to break even - the best way to do that is to release on 'more' platforms that 'could' benefit your own Platform and not 'help' your Direct competitor.

As this was the 'opening' show and the 'big' Publishers/Developers are likely to have their 'own' shows/reveals so their Show is exciting, I didn't expect much.

Sony for example may not want to get 'lost' in the mix with ALL the other news and could have a Show in a month or two with Games from their first Party Studios and announce the PS5 Pro coming this Holiday...

MS - along with Bethesda, ABK + any 3rd Party Partners will likely keep any big surprises for their Show and Ubisoft too will show their 'big' games coming. With numerous shows coming up, Geoff may have been left with 'little' that would excite the mainstream.

That 'mainstream' audience is waiting for CoD, for Assassins Creed, for Star Wars, for 'Fifa' (or whatever its called these days) - the 'big' Holiday releases, the next iteration of their favourite IP's that those 'mainstream' gamers buy and those games are likely to be shown at other shows this week.

Games maybe taking longer to make, but they aren't technically getting any 'better'. They may look far more realistic, but the Stories, the game-play loops etc aren't any better despite 'generations' of Hardware improvements.

I'd say that the PS3/360 era was the last real Generation that gave us 'experiences' unlike any other before. Since that Gen, it seems far more a focus on Graphics - delivering better resolutions, more objects, higher polygon counts etc but arguably dumbing down Game-play/Stories etc.

Things like Physics and destruction have certainly appeared to have disappeared in AAA games in favour of Static, but more detailed environments. Maybe due to such 'weak' CPU's...

It seems that Devs are spending so much time on 'Graphics' but Game-play/Stories haven't really evolved...

Nintendo isn't a 'Direct' Competitor - Sony even said they weren't 'Premium' Console Competition during the ABK deal - but Xbox Consoles specifically are.

This a Sony IP with no doubt a 'cut' going to Lego for their IP too. Therefore they need to sell more for 'both' to be happy and from Sony's perspective, when Switch gamers decide to buy a 'Premium' Console, they'll buy the PS5. They also think that PC gamers will want to buy a PS5 to play the games Sony releases on their PS5 'first' that much sooner by getting them into 'Sony IP's'...

I'm sure the PS5 could offer 8k in some games - even Natively, but I doubt it will offer any AAA new games at 8k or that ANY Devs would actively seek to make a 'native' 8k Game unless they have a low frame rate target and/or a LOT of GPU resources.

I have a bigger issue with Devs/Publishers actually lying about the resolution/frame rates of their games - Claiming 4k when its actually running at 1080p or lower and using FSR or some other upscaling method to send a '3840x2160' image to the TV. Yes it may well be sending a 4k image, but then my SkyQ sends a '4k' image for SD/HD content that's 'upscaled' before its sent to the TV thus filling a 3840x2160p screen

Same with Frame Rates - claim its 60fps, but invariably its running at 40-50FPS most of the time.

Sony may well be able to send an 8k image to a TV, but doesn't mean that 'Games' will be 8k. It could just be just 8k content via youtube for example. Being able to work with '8k' TV's could be enough - even if they don't have any 8k Content of their own.

Its like saying it has Dolby Vision support but if no Devs/Publishers add Dolby Vision to their games, its not Sony's fault. If it can do Mesh Shading for example, but no games release to utilise it, that's not the 'fault' of the hardware.

Even if Free to Play, I'm not interested...

Personally, I prefer Uncharted to Last of Us and Amy Hennigs Naughty Dog to Druckmanns. I thought the first Last of Us was more than enough and didn't need a Sequel - and maybe shouldn't have - no spoilers, but I don't think everyone was 'happy' with the story...

Personally I disliked Astro's Playroom - Partly because I felt it was a 'tech demo' for the Hardware, particularly the DS5 and I really don't enjoy some of the 'mechanics' that you are 'forced' to use to play the game. I never liked 'motion control', don't want to be 'blowing' on the Mic etc so I have never completed it.

I don't have any excitement for Platformer collectathons these days either so I doubt I'll be buying this. Each to their own of course, but I don't think this is for me.