I wonder if Spider-Man sales are boosted by the PC and of course, the PS5. Even if it was 'playable' via BC on PS5, they also 'sold' a PS5 Remastered 'upgrade' that may have counted as a 'Sale' too.
SM2 isn't on PC yet and hasn't got a 'remastered' version to buy even if you bought the OG version so maybe won't sell as many - at least not until its released on Steam...
@HonestHick If we look at Computers for example, MS has their own range - the Surface range with Windows OS competing with Asus, HP, Lenovo etc in 'Hardware' yet why bother? They all have MS Windows as an OS, all get people into the MS Windows Ecosystem so 'why' bother.
Hardware is not really what MS is known for but they could release a handheld gaming 'Surface' PC to rival Asus RoG Ally, Lenovo Go or MSi Claw for example instead of releasing a 'Series S Handheld' that ONLY plays 'Xbox console' games, meaning their Surface has more 'games' as its also got Sony's PC releases as well as Steam, Epic, Emulation of Nintendo, Sega etc older games for around the same Price.
If they released a Handheld PC for example, all the 'Console' gamers would see that as them 'giving up' on Gaming and becoming just a Publisher - even if most of their Library are not on Playstation/Nintendo 'Consoles'. But for MS, you are still in their 'Xbox' ecosystem, still playing on Windows based Hardware.
If you own a PC that not only plays all the Xbox games, but also Sony's games and ALL the other games not on the latest Xbox/Playstation consoles, then why spend another £500+ to play those same games but also much more limited selection of games and have to pay Subscription fees to play 'online'. Maybe you won't 'need' the PS6 or Next Box because you have Hardware already to play ALL the games you want....
@HonestHick And MS will no-doubt sell CoD and its many extras on Nintendo Hardware too - maybe they will lose 5m Xbox sales but gain 10m Switch Sales...
In the future, the way Chips are developing, you may have a Handheld PC capable of delivering 4k/120fps with AI help to a TV for around the same price as a 'console' that's locked to a single Platform holder and charging for online access. Phones these days have decent GPU's and RAM too so maybe being able to play on devices you 'have' is a bigger appeal than 'new' hardware when your hardware plays virtually 'everything' with the exception of the 'few' games that will come to PC eventually from Sony to release.
@HonestHick I know it ain't as 'expensive' as it looks, but its still more expensive and after a 'year', you don't own the base game which is 'required' for ALL the Content you may have purchased.
UE5 is interesting, but I'm also interested in seeing what the id tech or CoD engine may do for games like Halo for example. These engines are designed for 60+ fps with incredible 'graphics' for that frame-rate target - CoD and Doom impressed, even Wolfenstein too and Halo looked Dated. not very performant for the visual quality....
@HonestHick Well its the Same Price to 'own' on Xbox too and of course both require a Subscription to play 'online'. So if you don't have 'Game Pass', its exactly the same for both Xbox and PS gamers.
Its still 'cheaper' to buy on a Platform you own than buy a new Console just to play on Game Pass. If you also want to play games like Stafield, Hellblade, MSFS, Fable, Avowed, Stalker 2 etc - games that may not be on PS (certainly not Day/Date), then it may make sense.
MS may 'prefer' you to jump to Xbox to play on Game Pass as they'll get 100% of every Season Pass, Bundle etc you purchase over the '70%' they get from you on PS - over time, that may make MS 'more' money than you playing on Sony, Buying the Game etc as Sony take 30%.
MS are getting 70% of ALL money spent on CoD on PS and ALL the Money on Xbox - ABK only got 70% on Xbox too. So whilst they may lose '70%' from a PS sale if that person jumps to Xbox to play on Xbox, they get more from every Season Pass (100%) instead of Sony taking 30% so may make more over the life despite not 'selling' the base game.
If Subscription numbers or Console hardware jump up, that's not necessarily because of CoD as MS are expected to release Avowed, Indiana Jones, Stalker 2 etc this year and they are 'exclusives' where as CoD is not. Those games are more likely to affect Xbox/Game Pass sales more than CoD will.
@HonestHick If you are adding PS+ Essential, you do get 'Games' with that service too - otherwise its likely to be $70 on Xbox/PS5 to buy the 'base' version that Game Pass owners get access to for that $180 a 'year'.
Yes you also get access to games like Hellblade, Starfield, Indiana Jones, Flight Sim etc etc too - which is where the 'value' comes in, if you don't enjoy playing or would rather play on PS for their 'exclusives', Controller etc its still 'better' value to stay on Playstation than be forced to buy an Xbox or Sub to Game Pass to play - at least its staying on Playstation....
@Sifi Not really. Most CoD gamers bought a PS5 as Sony had bonuses that PC/Xbox gamers didn't. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS.
Those CoD gamers aren't going to rush and buy a Series X to get the 'same' graphics/performance options as they would on their PS5, spend $180 a year on Game Pass Ultimate to play ALL year and not get any 'extras'.
No doubt, the base game will be 'free' to play Day 1 - but as anyone knows, that's just the 'entry' fee. To get the most out of the game, you really need the Season Pass and maybe a Bundle or two.
As we have seen, I bet MS will offer an 'upgrade' on the Game Pass 'base' game to get the Premium Edition with the first Season Pass and maybe a few days 'early access' for 'Premium' Edition owners (whatever platform they play on) - Pay $40 to upgrade to that edition.
Point is, it's more like pay 'hundreds' to access CoD on Xbox to save paying $70 for only the 'base' game that you could still play 2 or 3yrs later. If it's where your friends, your library or your preference to play is, stick where you are. Game Pass too only makes sense if you intend to play 'other' games it offers - otherwise its $180 a year (Game Pass Ultimate to play 'online' every month too) for a $70 game.
I don't know that everyone on Xbox would now Subscribe to Game Pass to play the 'base' game Free, still have to buy Season Passes etc and end up spending more over the year and not own the game they have bought extra content for.
Even if Ubisoft decided to give away S&B for 'free' - make it Free to Play for everyone, I would still have ZERO interest in playing this. I can say the same for Suicide Squad too...
It doesn't matter how cheap they make it from my perspective, it won't tempt me...
Couldn't care less if a Story is written by Humans or AI, couldn't care less if AI designs and makes Games, does all the voice work etc, It's all about the 'end' product for me.
IF I can't tell in the end Product, why does it matter? Should 'humans' voice AI for Authenticity? What difference does it make knowing a voice was 'performed' by a Human or by an AI if it 'works' for the audience. If the Story is as good, if not better, the audience can't tell, then I couldn't care less.
I don't think AI is totally capable of writing a story, the scripts etc for a game without some Human correction/involvement or even some writers using AI for inspiration too. Nothing I have an issue with!
I would think that they'd do a Showcase if/when they have something to show - not just their own first Party stuff, but also their Partners. With the Holiday season coming, you'd think they'd do something to show their Roadmap for the end of the year but 'when', who knows...
They could announce a showcase and then hold it the next day for example rather than announce it weeks in advance - maybe if waiting on something to be finalised (some details/specs etc) or 'ready' to reveal (optimising and polishing a section so it looks presentable) before committing..
@DonkeyFantasy Parity just means it would have the same 'Content' - much like other Switch ports. The same Maps, same Campaign, same weapons/modes etc.
You get 'parity' between PS4 and PS5 versions despite the differences in Visuals (4k res, Higher visual settings etc on PS5) or 'Performance' (120fps modes on PS5). The fact is that PS4 still got the same 'Content' meant it had Parity - they didn't miss out on Content because they play on less capable hardware. Fortnite can be played on Switch with PS5/Series X/PC gamers so I can see CoD doing the same - even if it isn't offering up to 4k or up to 120fps...
Black Ops 3 on PS4 (I believe) didn't have Parity with its PS3 as it didn't have the campaign and missed out on DLC packs too.
@rjejr Differences of opinion lead to Conflict. That can be 'minor' (as in just verbal arguments), but can lead to far worse - such as death threats and even violence.
I will agree that in recent years, there seems to be an increase in these 'conflicts' becoming more than just a heated discussion/argument and leading to more violent acts/threats. Even if you are ALL gamers, there are arguments, death threats, violence etc because of opinions. Even if you love Football, you see violence over opinions.
All I said is that the more a Community grows, the more varied and/or extreme the Opinions can get, the more chance that you'll have some with no courtesy or common sense, Some 'extreme' behaviour/less tolerance to others and/or their culture etc.
I do agree with you that Society these days does seem worse than 25yrs ago, but to expect a large Community in a Game to be very different to Societal Communities (which may well be on a Knife edge today) isn't realistic either. The fact is that those who are violent, aggressive, lacking decency, common sense etc are still able to play and be part of that 'game' community too.
It 'reflects' society so if Society is lacking tolerance, lacking courtesy/common sense, then its likely to be the same within large gaming communities - those people don't change, maybe even worse when its not 'face to face'...
All I meant is that if Society and every other Community has these issues, then Gaming will be no different - not that it should be acceptable or tolerated, but more a reflection on the state of the world/communities in real life. I wish it was different, but it seems things are declining globally...
I tried not to go to 'deep', use some of the worst as examples etc to try not to upset, single any one or group out, not make it 'personal' etc as that maybe too much 'Politics' for a Gaming site so sorry if that seemed to miss the mark...
Take any Community, whether its built up around a Game, a Sports club or just the Community where you live, there is always some that will have a Different opinion, different perspective etc that can be a trigger for Conflict. The bigger the Community, the more variety of opinions etc, the more likely a conflict.
That can occur between fans too as they 'argue' over where the Devs should be focusing on or what they should be doing etc. When they do 'something', some wished they hadn't or rather wish they had done something different.
It's like playing an Objective based game in CoD when some of your team seem allergic to Objectives so you 'argue' about why they play those modes if they won't 'help' with the Objectives - then conflict starts.
The more people in a community, the more 'opinions' and differences you'll see. That can then lead to conflict as people try to assert their Opinions and dismiss others.
@rjejr Let alone there plan to release on more hardware too - so they aren't giving it away on Nintendo for example and probably not allowed to sell Game Pass on their Switch/Switch 2, so that's an added avenue to sales of the game.
If you've followed much of Game Pass news of late, they have also 'sold' upgrades - to special/collectors/premium/gold or whatever you want to call them versions - with Starfield it included 'early access' and the DLC when that released for an upgrade to the Game Pass access. Pay £35 for the early access Premium edition but don't own the 'base' game - people bought it though...
They'll do something similar with CoD too so CoD fans will pay for that Premium edition upgrade and get hooked on the season pass upgrade system and want to carry that on next season. Others may feel their missing out without that if they enjoy it - more money coming in....
@Vaako007 When you see what they can do with the new iPad Pro and its 'Bench marks' and Neural engine in something that thin/light, How long before you have 3080ti like GPU performance inc a Neural Processor for AI DLSS/RT/etc - all on a 1080p-1440p Handheld 'PC'?
Buy one of those for the same Price Sony wants for its next Console, that maybe a tougher proposition. Do you upgrade or get a PC where you can play Anywhere, anytime with great graphics/performance? PC has Playstation games as well as Steam, Epic etc - Games Sony won't have inc Nintendo games through emulation.
A mobile phone could well be powerful enough to to run games if people aren't expecting 4k 'ultra' graphics modes the 'best' PC offer too, so that's why MS is investing more in that market - they also want to get people buying Forza, Halo, CoD etc on there too.
Get CoD everywhere - inc Mobiles, you get more people buying season passes, cosmetic bundles etc. That makes up for the 'loss' of a few million sales on Xbox/PC. If you only have 5m Sales, you can only sell 5m season Passes - get 20m in, that's a LOT more people to potentially buy a season pass or whatever they sell in game...
@MrBook And yet Activision has opened 2 new Studios since they were acquired - Infinity Ward opened a new Studio in Austin last November to work on CoD tech and create 'innovative' new CoD experiences. This week, they announced a new Studio in Poland, Elseswhere Studios.
Roundhouse were 'merged' into Zenimax Online and maybe some of Arkane Austin staff were moved to other MS Austin based Studios, maybe to help Infinity Ward Austin to staff up and couldn't logistically 'staff' up both. With Arkane, they had lost a lot of the 'best' staff after being forced by Zenimax to make 'Redfall' in a way they had no experience or desire to make it. It may have cost too much to restaff and get them making games with ALL their other Studios (inc new Studios as part of the ABK group) so better to shutter and employ at Infinity Ward Austin for example as they may have a Game in development and likely ready to release much sooner.
@UltimateOtaku91 How much will they lose? From the last few years, Sony has certainly dominated as far as where the vast majority of 'Console' gamers have purchased this game. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS in the first week or so and if that continued, with 30m copies sold, that's over 20m on PS.
MS may 'lose' 5-10m sales of the 'base' game as those gamers choose to play through Game Pass. But a number of those will likely pre-order the Prestige edition with a Season Pass some cosmetics and/or early 'Beta' access. All those extras, like CoD points, Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles etc (also in Free to Play Warzone) will bring in revenue from GP subs.
MS too will bring CoD to 'more' players as they have a deal with Nintendo as well as numerous others, so may actually get more sales than they 'lose' on Xbox to Game Pass Subscribers. All the 'extras' too will still be 'sold' to Game Pass Subscribers and EVERYONE who wants to 'try' CoD online must have at least a Game Pass 'Core' Subscription on Xbox and/or keep their Game Pass Subscription active to keep playing which costs more than buying the game anyway...
I doubt this will mean a LOT more Xbox Consoles sold. It perhaps won't make sense for all those Playstation gamers who bought PS5 because of CoD and its benefits to PS gamers to suddenly rush out and buy a Series X and a Game Pass Subscription to 'save' buying it on a Platform they already had.
It may help a bit where those gamers that haven't yet upgraded to the current Console hardware, as CoD has been released on Last gen too, they may 'choose' to upgrade to Xbox now instead of Playstation, but it may depend on how many Digital games they own and would 'lose' by jumping from PS to Xbox.
MS stated ALL first Party games will be on Game Pass. The price went up recently - only a small amount, but with 35m, a $1 per person increase is an extra $35m a month, $420m a year - Game Pass 'income' is not something ABK had coming in. Also, every game sold on MS, they now get 100%, not just 30% as retailer on ALL digital content. You buy a season pass for say £20, in the past, ABK as Publisher would get £14, MS got £6 - now MS get all £20. Its not just 'Game' sales as Warzone, Free to Play anyway, also has numerous ways of bringing in money...
CoD has Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles, CoD Points etc and those bring in a LOT of revenue. Whilst some of those on Game Pass may only play the Campaign and not buy 'anything' extra, they probably wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Some others that may not have bought may well end up buying extras too - And you have ALL the revenue from selling the Game on PS5, selling extras to those. They may make a LOT more money from 'Sony' console gamers as they have the larger install base and won't be getting the game for 'free'. MS also had a deal with Nintendo - which may well bring in 'extra' income to offset some of the lost sales from Game Pass users.
As we have seen from 'MS' and the way they have offered Games, you get the 'base' game ONLY. CoD (as well as many other games) usually offer a Prestige/Collectors edition - maybe with the first Season Pass, extra Cosmetics, maybe early 'Beta' access etc so will bring in 'money' from Game Pass as CoD gamers pay £35-£40 to 'upgrade' their Game Pass edition to a Prestige/Premium edition. Its still cheaper than the £100+ Premium edition on PS for example but £100+ is still cheaper than buying a Series X to get the same quality experience and a Game Pass Subscription just to get the base game 'free'...
MS may not make as much 'per person' playing on Xbox as they would if it was 'Sold', but they could make 'more' money overall because its being Sold on Nintendo and bringing in more revenue on 'extras' across MORE platforms as they have MORE people in that game/marketstore!
@Vaako007 The average gamer, if you really want to there, would most likely be playing on their Mobile Phone as Mobile Gaming is by far the most popular 'Globally'.
Steam-deck or those Handheld PCs may well be a 'compliment' for a PC gamer, but the SteamDeck could be someones first Console instead of a Switch for example and cheaper than a PS5/Series X. Not only that, it probably has a larger Library inc being able to play both Sony and MS games all without a 'monthly' Subscription fee (even if just for 'online' access)
Most gamers aren't that bothered about 4k or RT and paying for Hardware to do '4k RT' is expensive. Handhelds may well be less 'powerful' than a Console, but they aren't required to do more than 1080p on their small 1080p screen. In a few years, you could have Handheld PC's with DLSS 3.0 for example too that are as 'cheap' as the next Playstation but with a MUCH larger Library inc Sony, MS etc games (inc any not playable via BC thanks to emulation), can play anywhere, take you games anywhere etc so 'most' gamers may well opt for that instead...
Why buy a Playstation when all those games are on a 'PC' which means you can play the game on 'cheap' PC handhelds, laptops, tablets or 'high end' gaming rigs, play a massive range of older and PC exclusive games and don't have any other 'Subscriptions' required, cheaper games etc.
The same principle applies to Sony as it does MS with regards to 'selling' games outside of their platform/ecosystem. If your games are available elsewhere, then 'some' gamers will choose to play on that hardware instead of buying their Hardware. If I had a high end gaming rig for example, why buy an Xbox? No point because I can play everything on that PC. Why buy a Playstation? No point because I can wait for Sony to release on PC. Spend £500 on a Handheld PC and I can play Playstation, Xbox, Steam etc games anytime, anywhere with no need for PS+/Game Pass monthly fees if I choose.
Handhelds are more popular than TV connected Consoles - as proven by the majority of gamers playing on Mobile devices - so I wouldn't say they are 'just' for the Road...
@Vaako007 That's not strictly true - Steam-Deck is a Handheld Console and many PC gamers buy a Playstation for the 'exclusives' they can't play on PC - now they can.
We are also seeing more and more Handheld Consoles that are not overly expensive considering they are gaming PC's. A RoG Ally for example can play Spider-Man, R&C, Starfield or Forza - as well as all steam, epic, old Playstation/Nintendo/Sega games - a MUCH larger Library than both Playstation 5 and Xbox Series combined.
The only real difference is that Devs will likely give you a 'few' options - maybe a 30fps and 60fps mode to choose between but with a PC, you can tweak the settings to suit your hardware and preference.
When I got my RoG Ally, it was very Similar to buying a Console, plugging it in, updating it, Signing in to my account, waiting for Games to download/install/update to the latest patch and then just playing. In fact, I had immediate access to Game Pass and Steam, each with my Library ready, each with my saves ready so I can continue where I left off etc.
Why spend £500+ on a Console with a more limited Library and locked into that 1 'ecosystem' when you can buy a Handheld PC for example and Play a much larger Library inc all Xbox, most Sony etc games that are often cheaper and much more likely to be Backwards Compatible in the future too?
Yes a gaming PC can be expensive, but its not that 'expensive' if you aren't bothered about '4k' - especially if you don't have a 4k display. Some people may prefer to have 1080/120 without RT than 4k/30 with RT or 4k/60 without it but you may not have that choice on a 'locked' console.
Maybe because the majority of the streamers who were used to promote this moved on to the next big thing they were promoting (whether its Grey Zone, Arena, Marvel Rivals, DefiantX etc).
These games maybe 'fun' with the right friends for an hour or two, but the lack of depth, doing the same thing match after match isn't good for longevity. As more and more 'struggle' to establish and compete with Fortnite, Apex, Warzone etc, the more difficult I think it will be for 'new' games as people will be reluctant to play something they fear will be shuttered in a few years...
Personally I couldn't care less. I doubt its much different to Sony wanting to put more games on PC - whether they release day/date or some-time after.
Exclusives can still be beneficial for MS in the same way they are for Sony. They can use them to sell Hardware, get people playing in your 'ecosystem' and then sell them elsewhere once they have served that purpose and 'new' games are being used for hardware sales.
Starfield for example could release a year or two - but at that point, its 'old' news on Xbox and games like Fable or Perfect Dark may well be exclusives to get people into the Xbox ecosystem.
Thats similar to Sony with God of War, Spider-Man or Horizon for example - when those games were not selling Hardware and/or Sales have dried up to a trickle, they sell on PC to bring in more money and another PR cycle for Sony.
MS may well do the same - except they already release on PC so the only real option to get that 'extra' money and PR cycle is to release on the only Platforms you can't yet play their Games.
Sony actively choose not to tap into the Xbox market in the same way they have chosen to tap into the PC market. MS may choose to tap more into the Playstation market and I would expect that they'll decide which 'older' games to release. Of course some IP's like CoD, Minecraft will release Day/date anyway...
Numerous factors put me off - the Cards was one aspect, the XCOM connection and turn based combat was also a major turn-off.
I wouldn't play any game with that style of Game-play loop regardless of the story or how popular the IP the game-play is wrapped in. Just because the Story maybe great or fact it's a 'Marvel' game doesn't mean that people will buy if the Game-play doesn't appeal.
The only way I'd be OK with 'Ads' in games is if they were going for a Realistic look with real branded items - similar to how Car Racing games have their branded vehicle models.It may not seem like advertising, but they are 'advertising' their brand, logo and models.
In other words, if you have a City, you'd see realistic adverts on billboards as you drive around. Instead of seeing 'Burger Queen' or 'McDougals', you get Burger King and McDonalds.
I don't want to have to watch a 30s Advert for Coca-Cola or a world where the only drink is Pepsi and that Logo is EVERYWHERE. However, I can see this being more the case - unfortunately...
It really doesn't matter or make any difference to me whatsoever. I really don't see how it negatively impacts me whether the game is 'limited' to just Playstation ONLY gamers or that MANY other gamers can play. If anything, exclusives force me to buy Hardware or miss out on the 1 or 2 games a year I can't play EVERYWHERE adding to the Cost.
I'd rather have more choice as to where I choose to play games, not less/no choice.
I, like MANY gamers, could see this happening regardless. The fact that WB couldn't/didn't, especially with other games - like Marvel's Avengers, proving that 'Live Service' isn't what the gamers want.
Publishers see the 'success' of some Live Service game, the sales of MTX in those, and think EVERY game should be made into a 'Live Service' - thinking more about the cosmetics, the 'grind' etc instead of focusing on the Game-play, story, character development etc. Not only is everything so 'mediocre', its often repetitive, grindy and a weak 'story'.
Hogwarts, despite its 'Controversy' was a game that focused on Story, Game-play and what a 'Gamer' would want from that IP and as a result, succeeded...
@Intr1n5ic My Email is 'Private' for example - and Sony don't have the best record for Data breaches.
Oh and in some countries, Facial pic and some ID (Passport, Drivers Licence etc) is required to verify age. That's also 'private' and shouldn't be required to play a GAME especially on another Platform - its purely to give Sony more control over who plays their Game even if you are not playing on Sony's Platform!
All these Sony Playstation Console ONLY fanboys defending this. I wonder how they'd feel if you bought Battlefield/Fifa and several months later, EA demand you give your private details and link your PS account to EA or you won't be able to play the game you bought anymore. What if there is 'no' EA account in your region so that game you bought will cease to work for you.
What if the only reason EA want you link the account is so that they have more control over you/your access etc. The ability to ban/block you from playing on Playstation with more ease and efficiency instead of having to go through Sony...
Of course its not a 'big deal' if you play on Playstation because you have a PSN account to play on Playstation. You are already locked into what Sony allows you to play and has that Control to censor. Don't want you to see a bit more 'skin' on a Character, they can force devs to censor it for release on 'their' platform and that extends to censoring 'people'. Saying Playstation is for the 'kids' for example could get you 'banned' by Sony despite playing on Steam...
Helldivers 2 is now unavailable for purchase in over 150 regions, and Steam is issuing refunds for the game, regardless of playtime.
Now, due to PSN not being available in over 150 countries where Helldivers 2 was previously purchasable on Steam, the game has been delisted in them, according to SteamDb.
Players are reporting that the service is issuing refunds for the game, regardless of playtime. Typically, players have two hours to decide whether or not they want a refund, but Valve has seemingly relaxed these rules in the wake of the PSN change.
That's all from VGC.
Whilst PSN may well have been 'required', until May 3rd, Sony themselves had stipulated PSN was 'optional' on their own website. From May 3rd, they changed that wording to say 'some' games may require a PSN account.
The 'reason' they gave on Twitter is to make it easier/quicker for them to BAN players - particularly those on PC/Steam. There is more 'legal' hoops to jump through to Ban players on other Platforms and impose their 'censorship' rules.
Doesn't matter if you bought the game on Steam, if Sony decides you can't play it anymore, this gives them that control.
@Reptilio Why play on Xbox if you can play those games plus Sonys on PlayStation?
Those 'Xbox' games were released first on Xbox and can be played 'free' with a Game Pass Subscription. Why buy a Playstation when Sony's games are on PC and Xbox games are too - as well as all the PC 'exclusives', emulation etc?
Assuming MS do release more games on Playstation day/date (which we know they will with Call of Duty and Minecraft) instead of waiting a year or more, on Xbox/PC, you could play those for 'Free' but on PS, it will cost you $70+, there is an 'incentive'. A PC and 'Game Pass' for example could get you ALL the Xbox games and still play Sony's games too...
Xbox won't make up ground in terms of Console sales, but then they don't need to sell Consoles like Sony/Nintendo do. If the whole point was to sell 'consoles', then they would 'never' release their games 'day/date' on PC or Cloud to get people to buy a Console to play Forza, Starfield, Hellblade 2 etc. Instead, they integrated 'Xbox' into Windows and now are more concerned with getting Gamers into their 'ecosystem' and IP's.
With games like Starfield, Indiana Jones, Hellblade 2, Avowed etc, those aren't coming to Playstation, at least not 'day 1', then you have 'exclusives' to entice people in - much like Horizon, Spider-Man, Days Gone or R&C did for Sony, even if these are now on PC. I don't need a PS console, I can play those on a Steam Deck or Win11 handheld PC 'Console'.
At the end of the day, Exclusives are an incentive to get people in to an ecosystem so I expect MS to keep some games 'exclusive' for at least a period of time. But that's not the 'only' incentive to buy Hardware - other incentives include Costs, Services (like Game Pass) and/or preferences. You may prefer to 'buy' the games you want, prefer Sony's ecosystem or controller etc and willing to wait for ANY Xbox game - another may prefer to play on PC and wait for any Sony games to come, another may prefer to buy an Xbox and play whatever Game Pass games (inc 3rd Party) they have access to for a low cost gaming experience.
Who knows what the future looks like, but right now for example, I feel I have far less to look forward to on Playstation - just Wolverine, yet on Xbox, I have Hellblade, Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution etc so if I was considering either a Series X or PS5 right now, Series X looks most promising - and even games like CoD, Diablo, Doom, Wolfenstein, Fallout etc are likely to be on Game Pass in the Future...
From my perspective, I don't feel like I have much to look forward to with only Wolverine as the only officially revealed game that interested me. I have no interest in Marathon, Concord or whatever else they have confirmed.
I'm not a Final Fantasy or JRPG fan either, don't enjoy Souls-like games so the majority of 3rd Party Exclusives haven't excited me and certainly won't make up for a lack of games like Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone, Resistance etc games I would want. ND had 4 big games during the PS3 era, yet just 2 during the PS4 era (not counting re-releases on newer hardware) and 'nothing' since LoU2. SuckerPunch too have only released 1 game since Infamous 2nd Son - Ghost of Tsushima. with sequels like GoW:R and H:FW taking over 5yrs, It seems these studio's will release 1 or 2 games a generation.
I'd be more concerned though if the Playstation didn't get much 3rd Party support (whether Exclusive, timed-exclusive or not) as I only care whether I can access the games where I'd prefer to play them and 'exclusivity' takes away that choice. The lack of 'exclusives' doesn't mean the lack of great games to play...
@Kraaatos It is - its not made by a First Party Studio - Returnal too at the time of release wasn't a First Party Studio game either. It also released day/date on PC/Steam too - so also on the Steam Deck, a handheld 'console'. They 'could' become a First Party Studio in the future.
Makes games no-one really wanted for the most popular hardware in a blatant Money grabbing exercise and makes a game that would likely sell on mainstream consoles for a 'niche' VR market...
To be honest, It could just be to get people to buy it before it is removed and they lose access. It may also mean that Horizon Forbidden West could be coming to the Service to drive more Subscriptions. People may have to rush through or buy H:ZD to finish it before H:FW comes.
Chances are, if they are porting it to PS5, it wouldn't be a 'free' upgrade anyway.
I voted No, I have no interest in any of them - although that should be expanded to 'no interest in buying them on PS5' as I have a Series X, PC and Game Pass as well as my PS5.
It makes no sense to buy on PS5 when I can and/or have played these already on Xbox. It makes more sense to buy games I can't play on Sub Services.
Of course MS will bring more 'new' games to Playstation - games like Call of Duty or Minecraft will certainly release the same day on Playstation as Xbox.
I don't know about their AAA Single Player games as they are the Games that are likely to sell Hardware and Game Pass Subs. Its what they are likely to use in the same way Sony uses games like Spider-Man, God of War or Horizon. Online games though may well be better to release everywhere and grow the Community so that 'friends/family' can play together regardless of their Platform choice. Starfield or Indiana Jones are Single Player games so don't have Friends/family 'excluded' from playing together because of their Console preference.
Maybe Single Player games will 'eventually' release on PS - once they have served their purpose of selling Subs/hardware - much like Sony releasing their games eventually on PC when they think they won't affect their Console sales. But I won't hold my breath or 'expect' these at some point...
I doubt a Physical release would have made that much difference. Some of the Digital purchasers would likely have bought Physical instead with much lower profit margins (due to manufacturing, distribution etc costs as well as Retailer competition bringing the price lower) so would need even more people to buy to break even.
No game to me is worth that cost. Red Dead Redemption 2 for example was a much 'bigger' game, equally as stunning for its time with incredible attention to detail in its presentation and animations, yet cost me a LOT less only a few years ago. I can play Control (Ultimate Edition) for next to nothing, if not 'free' on a sub service, so why buy this when I have so many other Games to play for a LOT less money and this will be cheap in a sale or come to a sub service soon enough...
Of course they'll be games that will be playable on Playstation - they often showcase indies and 3rd Party games that will be releasing on PS day/date - and numerous IP's on PS too - from games that existed before MS took over - Fallout76/ESO, CoD, Diablo etc (new DLC maybe?) to games made under MS - Minecraft (Legends & Dungeons), Sea of Thieves and Grounded etc.
In the past, we have seen games like AC: Valhalla, Lies of P, Plague Tale etc appear during MS's show - games that released on Playstation too and of course Like a Dragon, Persona etc have appeared on the Xbox stage as well.
To be honest, I felt Fallout 4 was dated on release and felt more like Fallout 3 - with a bit more colour and clunky base building bolted on.
Starfield certainly has it's Bethesda style that hasn't really 'evolved' from Fallout - it's Combat felt better, more fun and refined, but it's the 'typical' missions, structure and style to all Bethesda games that I think hurts it - people expected Bethesda to 'evolve' - not keep copy, paste and reskinning to suit the IP.
If they made Fallout 5, I bet it would look/feel like Fallout 4 with some 'new' mechanic (maybe boosters from Starfield and that more refined 'combat' or some Procedurally generated things popping up) - but it would still 'look/feel' like a Bethesda game that will still feel dated by other RPG standards LOL
I believe a few games from PS4 PS+ didn't get 'free' upgrades to PS5 unless you actually 'owned' the game - not borrowing it indefinitely (or until your PS+ Subscription lapses.
In other words, not those with 'Conditional' licences to play - the Condition is to keep paying for your PS+ to keep accessing these games - which to me is 'fair' enough - after all, you didn't 'buy' the game and your subscription was only for the 'PS4' version - which you can still play via BC.
Still a LOT of unknowns. The 'only' confirmed First Party game I am interested in at this point is 'Wolverine'. Games like Concord, FairGame$, Marathon etc do not interest me at all and I doubt that I'll be interested in a 'Horizon' Live Service too if that is confirmed.
Maybe 3rd Party partners will have games in the near future that will appeal but right now, I am not excited by Sony's future 1st Party Games.
@NEStalgia To be honest, I'd prefer a steady 40fps on a 60hz screen than an unsteady 30fps - but I'd prefer a Locked 30fps to a locked 40fps on that set-up.
Its not just slight judder, but inconsistent motion as you either get inconsistent Frame persistence (1 frame displayed for 2 refreshes and the next frame only displayed for 1 frame), Screen tear (where the screen refreshes with only some of the 'new' frame displayed whilst the rest is the old frame persisting) or some other issue.
At 30fps, you may have more of a noticeable jump as fast moving objects move a greater distance between frames - but its Consistent and good motion blur can make it look really smooth.
Obviously I would 'generally' prefer a locked 40fps on a 120hz display to a locked 30fps - but I don't ALWAYS play in 60fps Performance modes as the 30fps mode not only looks significantly better, it offers a locked 30fps compared to a 45-60fps unstable frame rate. I prefer a 'consistent' frame rate.
40fps is exactly half-way between 30fps and 60fps in terms of Frame Time - 30fps is 33.3ms per frame, 40fps is 25ms per frame and 60fps is 16.6ms.
It also fits perfectly in a 120hz container like 30 and 60fps. You get 4x Refreshes per Frame at 30fps, 3x Refreshes per Frame at 40fps and 2x refreshes per frame at 60fps.
Part of the reason 40fps isn't and hasn't been common on Consoles comes down to Displays. Until recently, we didn't have TV's with 120hz panels or VRR. 40fps doesn't fit nicely in a 60hz container so 30fps (2x refreshes per frame) became the 'minimum'. With the majority of TV's still unlikely to offer 120hz, there has been 'little' reason to optimise for the 'few' that can use that mode. Those with 60hz TV's though will have to settle for 30fps or 60fps modes.
I would expect it to become more Common as more and more TV's have at least 120hz Panels with more and more people upgrading from their existing 60hz TV's. These TV's are also becoming cheaper too.
Nice to see more Devs adding this feature and I hope to see more do so in the future.
So instead of watching Twitch or youtube streamers playing the game, you can now watch AI play your games instead...
Anything that is considered 'grindy' or excessively time consuming, that to me is 'bad' game design. I can understand how some things may have a 'time' factor, like waiting for crops to grow or base building, but I'd rather have better AI - AI 'workers' that you can assign to tasks that can take the monotony out of certain repetitive tasks leaving you 'free' to go off and play other aspects. If you don't want to tend to crops, finish building your base, collect certain resources etc, your AI companions can do those instead...
@lindos 3 - 3, New Vegas and 4 make 3 Fallout games. 1 & 2 were quite different in design and PC Only I believe, any others were spin-offs (like Shelter) that didn't appeal...
@Kidfried Of course Game Pass will affect some Games and their sale figures - its only natural after all that gamers, especially those with a LOT more Choice on what games they 'want' to fill their limited leisure time with, and in a Cost of Living crisis, will likely be less inclined to spend money if they don't need to.
If you have limited gaming time and there are games that appeal 'more' with much lower cost, it doesn't make sense to spend more. 'New' releases aren't just competing against other 'new' releases that week, they are competing with the 1000's of Games you have access to with your Hardware. If you'd rather play an older game now on Sale or a game in a Sub service, it makes sense not to buy.
Xbox gamers will buy Games they can't get on Game Pass - but they have to be anticipated, wanted more than all the other games you have access to.
If this released today on Xbox for example for £30, I'm sure it would sell some copies. I myself may not choose to buy because I could fill my limited Gaming time by playing Diablo 4, Lies of P, Sea of Thieves, Starfield, Mass Effect Trilogy, Star Wars: Jedi Survivor, MLB24 or any of the other hundreds of games I could play for 'less' than £30 via sales or Sub Services.
If the game is 'good' enough, appeals enough and/or at the 'right' price, Gamers will buy - its just that Competition for gamers 'time' is more Competitive on Xbox because you also have 'new' day 1 releases in Game Pass. Hundreds of games competing just for your 'time'.
@NoCode23 I still have my 360 and PS3, (as well as both XB1S & X and both a PS4 and PS4 Pro) so was never too concerned about what 'Old' games were playable on my PS5. I was merely curious for those with only a Playstation to game on if they could still play Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
I know I can play these as well as 4 or 76 on my Series X and even if I didn't own most of them (I don't own 76), I can still play via Game Pass on that console or even on my PC's.
@carlos82 That's what I thought... New Vegas was my Favourite Fallout game - although never played the first 2 or 76. I haven't finished 4 either so may return once its patched for current hardware. Its one of those 'backlog' games in my collection...
Comments 5,940
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 Swings 11 Million Sales as Sony Calls PS5 Exclusive a 'Great Success'
I wonder if Spider-Man sales are boosted by the PC and of course, the PS5. Even if it was 'playable' via BC on PS5, they also 'sold' a PS5 Remastered 'upgrade' that may have counted as a 'Sale' too.
SM2 isn't on PC yet and hasn't got a 'remastered' version to buy even if you bought the OG version so maybe won't sell as many - at least not until its released on Steam...
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick If we look at Computers for example, MS has their own range - the Surface range with Windows OS competing with Asus, HP, Lenovo etc in 'Hardware' yet why bother? They all have MS Windows as an OS, all get people into the MS Windows Ecosystem so 'why' bother.
Hardware is not really what MS is known for but they could release a handheld gaming 'Surface' PC to rival Asus RoG Ally, Lenovo Go or MSi Claw for example instead of releasing a 'Series S Handheld' that ONLY plays 'Xbox console' games, meaning their Surface has more 'games' as its also got Sony's PC releases as well as Steam, Epic, Emulation of Nintendo, Sega etc older games for around the same Price.
If they released a Handheld PC for example, all the 'Console' gamers would see that as them 'giving up' on Gaming and becoming just a Publisher - even if most of their Library are not on Playstation/Nintendo 'Consoles'. But for MS, you are still in their 'Xbox' ecosystem, still playing on Windows based Hardware.
If you own a PC that not only plays all the Xbox games, but also Sony's games and ALL the other games not on the latest Xbox/Playstation consoles, then why spend another £500+ to play those same games but also much more limited selection of games and have to pay Subscription fees to play 'online'. Maybe you won't 'need' the PS6 or Next Box because you have Hardware already to play ALL the games you want....
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick And MS will no-doubt sell CoD and its many extras on Nintendo Hardware too - maybe they will lose 5m Xbox sales but gain 10m Switch Sales...
In the future, the way Chips are developing, you may have a Handheld PC capable of delivering 4k/120fps with AI help to a TV for around the same price as a 'console' that's locked to a single Platform holder and charging for online access. Phones these days have decent GPU's and RAM too so maybe being able to play on devices you 'have' is a bigger appeal than 'new' hardware when your hardware plays virtually 'everything' with the exception of the 'few' games that will come to PC eventually from Sony to release.
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick I know it ain't as 'expensive' as it looks, but its still more expensive and after a 'year', you don't own the base game which is 'required' for ALL the Content you may have purchased.
UE5 is interesting, but I'm also interested in seeing what the id tech or CoD engine may do for games like Halo for example. These engines are designed for 60+ fps with incredible 'graphics' for that frame-rate target - CoD and Doom impressed, even Wolfenstein too and Halo looked Dated. not very performant for the visual quality....
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick Well its the Same Price to 'own' on Xbox too and of course both require a Subscription to play 'online'. So if you don't have 'Game Pass', its exactly the same for both Xbox and PS gamers.
Its still 'cheaper' to buy on a Platform you own than buy a new Console just to play on Game Pass. If you also want to play games like Stafield, Hellblade, MSFS, Fable, Avowed, Stalker 2 etc - games that may not be on PS (certainly not Day/Date), then it may make sense.
MS may 'prefer' you to jump to Xbox to play on Game Pass as they'll get 100% of every Season Pass, Bundle etc you purchase over the '70%' they get from you on PS - over time, that may make MS 'more' money than you playing on Sony, Buying the Game etc as Sony take 30%.
MS are getting 70% of ALL money spent on CoD on PS and ALL the Money on Xbox - ABK only got 70% on Xbox too. So whilst they may lose '70%' from a PS sale if that person jumps to Xbox to play on Xbox, they get more from every Season Pass (100%) instead of Sony taking 30% so may make more over the life despite not 'selling' the base game.
If Subscription numbers or Console hardware jump up, that's not necessarily because of CoD as MS are expected to release Avowed, Indiana Jones, Stalker 2 etc this year and they are 'exclusives' where as CoD is not. Those games are more likely to affect Xbox/Game Pass sales more than CoD will.
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick If you are adding PS+ Essential, you do get 'Games' with that service too - otherwise its likely to be $70 on Xbox/PS5 to buy the 'base' version that Game Pass owners get access to for that $180 a 'year'.
Yes you also get access to games like Hellblade, Starfield, Indiana Jones, Flight Sim etc etc too - which is where the 'value' comes in, if you don't enjoy playing or would rather play on PS for their 'exclusives', Controller etc its still 'better' value to stay on Playstation than be forced to buy an Xbox or Sub to Game Pass to play - at least its staying on Playstation....
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@Sifi Not really. Most CoD gamers bought a PS5 as Sony had bonuses that PC/Xbox gamers didn't. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS.
Those CoD gamers aren't going to rush and buy a Series X to get the 'same' graphics/performance options as they would on their PS5, spend $180 a year on Game Pass Ultimate to play ALL year and not get any 'extras'.
No doubt, the base game will be 'free' to play Day 1 - but as anyone knows, that's just the 'entry' fee. To get the most out of the game, you really need the Season Pass and maybe a Bundle or two.
As we have seen, I bet MS will offer an 'upgrade' on the Game Pass 'base' game to get the Premium Edition with the first Season Pass and maybe a few days 'early access' for 'Premium' Edition owners (whatever platform they play on) - Pay $40 to upgrade to that edition.
Point is, it's more like pay 'hundreds' to access CoD on Xbox to save paying $70 for only the 'base' game that you could still play 2 or 3yrs later. If it's where your friends, your library or your preference to play is, stick where you are. Game Pass too only makes sense if you intend to play 'other' games it offers - otherwise its $180 a year (Game Pass Ultimate to play 'online' every month too) for a $70 game.
I don't know that everyone on Xbox would now Subscribe to Game Pass to play the 'base' game Free, still have to buy Season Passes etc and end up spending more over the year and not own the game they have bought extra content for.
Re: Ubisoft Pirate Game Skull and Bones Gets Trial Version, Price Cut as Player Count Reportedly Plummets
Even if Ubisoft decided to give away S&B for 'free' - make it Free to Play for everyone, I would still have ZERO interest in playing this. I can say the same for Suicide Squad too...
It doesn't matter how cheap they make it from my perspective, it won't tempt me...
Re: AI Helps Push Forward 'Boundaries of Storytelling', Says Naughty Dog's Neil Druckmann
Couldn't care less if a Story is written by Humans or AI, couldn't care less if AI designs and makes Games, does all the voice work etc, It's all about the 'end' product for me.
IF I can't tell in the end Product, why does it matter? Should 'humans' voice AI for Authenticity? What difference does it make knowing a voice was 'performed' by a Human or by an AI if it 'works' for the audience. If the Story is as good, if not better, the audience can't tell, then I couldn't care less.
I don't think AI is totally capable of writing a story, the scripts etc for a game without some Human correction/involvement or even some writers using AI for inspiration too. Nothing I have an issue with!
Re: Poll: Will the Rumoured PlayStation Showcase Be Announced Soon?
I have no idea with Sony anymore.
I would think that they'd do a Showcase if/when they have something to show - not just their own first Party stuff, but also their Partners. With the Holiday season coming, you'd think they'd do something to show their Roadmap for the end of the year but 'when', who knows...
They could announce a showcase and then hold it the next day for example rather than announce it weeks in advance - maybe if waiting on something to be finalised (some details/specs etc) or 'ready' to reveal (optimising and polishing a section so it looks presentable) before committing..
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Now Official, Reveal Next Month
@DonkeyFantasy Parity just means it would have the same 'Content' - much like other Switch ports. The same Maps, same Campaign, same weapons/modes etc.
You get 'parity' between PS4 and PS5 versions despite the differences in Visuals (4k res, Higher visual settings etc on PS5) or 'Performance' (120fps modes on PS5). The fact is that PS4 still got the same 'Content' meant it had Parity - they didn't miss out on Content because they play on less capable hardware. Fortnite can be played on Switch with PS5/Series X/PC gamers so I can see CoD doing the same - even if it isn't offering up to 4k or up to 120fps...
Black Ops 3 on PS4 (I believe) didn't have Parity with its PS3 as it didn't have the campaign and missed out on DLC packs too.
Re: Helldivers 2 Dev Says It's Seen 'Horrifying' Toxicity from Some of the Community
@rjejr Differences of opinion lead to Conflict. That can be 'minor' (as in just verbal arguments), but can lead to far worse - such as death threats and even violence.
I will agree that in recent years, there seems to be an increase in these 'conflicts' becoming more than just a heated discussion/argument and leading to more violent acts/threats. Even if you are ALL gamers, there are arguments, death threats, violence etc because of opinions. Even if you love Football, you see violence over opinions.
All I said is that the more a Community grows, the more varied and/or extreme the Opinions can get, the more chance that you'll have some with no courtesy or common sense, Some 'extreme' behaviour/less tolerance to others and/or their culture etc.
I do agree with you that Society these days does seem worse than 25yrs ago, but to expect a large Community in a Game to be very different to Societal Communities (which may well be on a Knife edge today) isn't realistic either. The fact is that those who are violent, aggressive, lacking decency, common sense etc are still able to play and be part of that 'game' community too.
It 'reflects' society so if Society is lacking tolerance, lacking courtesy/common sense, then its likely to be the same within large gaming communities - those people don't change, maybe even worse when its not 'face to face'...
All I meant is that if Society and every other Community has these issues, then Gaming will be no different - not that it should be acceptable or tolerated, but more a reflection on the state of the world/communities in real life. I wish it was different, but it seems things are declining globally...
I tried not to go to 'deep', use some of the worst as examples etc to try not to upset, single any one or group out, not make it 'personal' etc as that maybe too much 'Politics' for a Gaming site so sorry if that seemed to miss the mark...
Re: Helldivers 2 Dev Says It's Seen 'Horrifying' Toxicity from Some of the Community
Take any Community, whether its built up around a Game, a Sports club or just the Community where you live, there is always some that will have a Different opinion, different perspective etc that can be a trigger for Conflict. The bigger the Community, the more variety of opinions etc, the more likely a conflict.
That can occur between fans too as they 'argue' over where the Devs should be focusing on or what they should be doing etc. When they do 'something', some wished they hadn't or rather wish they had done something different.
It's like playing an Objective based game in CoD when some of your team seem allergic to Objectives so you 'argue' about why they play those modes if they won't 'help' with the Objectives - then conflict starts.
The more people in a community, the more 'opinions' and differences you'll see. That can then lead to conflict as people try to assert their Opinions and dismiss others.
Re: Random: DOOM Co-Creator John Romero Reveals Hellish Way 'Gib' Is Properly Pronounced
There is a difference between a shortened word and an Acronym.
'Gib' is a shortened version of Giblets so I have always said this with a 'soft' G.
GIF is a n Acronym and the first word of that starts with a hard G (graphics) so its a GIF with hard G - regardless
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
@rjejr Let alone there plan to release on more hardware too - so they aren't giving it away on Nintendo for example and probably not allowed to sell Game Pass on their Switch/Switch 2, so that's an added avenue to sales of the game.
If you've followed much of Game Pass news of late, they have also 'sold' upgrades - to special/collectors/premium/gold or whatever you want to call them versions - with Starfield it included 'early access' and the DLC when that released for an upgrade to the Game Pass access. Pay £35 for the early access Premium edition but don't own the 'base' game - people bought it though...
They'll do something similar with CoD too so CoD fans will pay for that Premium edition upgrade and get hooked on the season pass upgrade system and want to carry that on next season. Others may feel their missing out without that if they enjoy it - more money coming in....
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
@Vaako007 When you see what they can do with the new iPad Pro and its 'Bench marks' and Neural engine in something that thin/light, How long before you have 3080ti like GPU performance inc a Neural Processor for AI DLSS/RT/etc - all on a 1080p-1440p Handheld 'PC'?
Buy one of those for the same Price Sony wants for its next Console, that maybe a tougher proposition. Do you upgrade or get a PC where you can play Anywhere, anytime with great graphics/performance? PC has Playstation games as well as Steam, Epic etc - Games Sony won't have inc Nintendo games through emulation.
A mobile phone could well be powerful enough to to run games if people aren't expecting 4k 'ultra' graphics modes the 'best' PC offer too, so that's why MS is investing more in that market - they also want to get people buying Forza, Halo, CoD etc on there too.
Get CoD everywhere - inc Mobiles, you get more people buying season passes, cosmetic bundles etc. That makes up for the 'loss' of a few million sales on Xbox/PC. If you only have 5m Sales, you can only sell 5m season Passes - get 20m in, that's a LOT more people to potentially buy a season pass or whatever they sell in game...
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
@MrBook And yet Activision has opened 2 new Studios since they were acquired - Infinity Ward opened a new Studio in Austin last November to work on CoD tech and create 'innovative' new CoD experiences. This week, they announced a new Studio in Poland, Elseswhere Studios.
Roundhouse were 'merged' into Zenimax Online and maybe some of Arkane Austin staff were moved to other MS Austin based Studios, maybe to help Infinity Ward Austin to staff up and couldn't logistically 'staff' up both. With Arkane, they had lost a lot of the 'best' staff after being forced by Zenimax to make 'Redfall' in a way they had no experience or desire to make it. It may have cost too much to restaff and get them making games with ALL their other Studios (inc new Studios as part of the ABK group) so better to shutter and employ at Infinity Ward Austin for example as they may have a Game in development and likely ready to release much sooner.
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
@UltimateOtaku91 How much will they lose? From the last few years, Sony has certainly dominated as far as where the vast majority of 'Console' gamers have purchased this game. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS in the first week or so and if that continued, with 30m copies sold, that's over 20m on PS.
MS may 'lose' 5-10m sales of the 'base' game as those gamers choose to play through Game Pass. But a number of those will likely pre-order the Prestige edition with a Season Pass some cosmetics and/or early 'Beta' access. All those extras, like CoD points, Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles etc (also in Free to Play Warzone) will bring in revenue from GP subs.
MS too will bring CoD to 'more' players as they have a deal with Nintendo as well as numerous others, so may actually get more sales than they 'lose' on Xbox to Game Pass Subscribers. All the 'extras' too will still be 'sold' to Game Pass Subscribers and EVERYONE who wants to 'try' CoD online must have at least a Game Pass 'Core' Subscription on Xbox and/or keep their Game Pass Subscription active to keep playing which costs more than buying the game anyway...
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
I doubt this will mean a LOT more Xbox Consoles sold. It perhaps won't make sense for all those Playstation gamers who bought PS5 because of CoD and its benefits to PS gamers to suddenly rush out and buy a Series X and a Game Pass Subscription to 'save' buying it on a Platform they already had.
It may help a bit where those gamers that haven't yet upgraded to the current Console hardware, as CoD has been released on Last gen too, they may 'choose' to upgrade to Xbox now instead of Playstation, but it may depend on how many Digital games they own and would 'lose' by jumping from PS to Xbox.
MS stated ALL first Party games will be on Game Pass. The price went up recently - only a small amount, but with 35m, a $1 per person increase is an extra $35m a month, $420m a year - Game Pass 'income' is not something ABK had coming in. Also, every game sold on MS, they now get 100%, not just 30% as retailer on ALL digital content. You buy a season pass for say £20, in the past, ABK as Publisher would get £14, MS got £6 - now MS get all £20. Its not just 'Game' sales as Warzone, Free to Play anyway, also has numerous ways of bringing in money...
CoD has Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles, CoD Points etc and those bring in a LOT of revenue. Whilst some of those on Game Pass may only play the Campaign and not buy 'anything' extra, they probably wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Some others that may not have bought may well end up buying extras too - And you have ALL the revenue from selling the Game on PS5, selling extras to those. They may make a LOT more money from 'Sony' console gamers as they have the larger install base and won't be getting the game for 'free'. MS also had a deal with Nintendo - which may well bring in 'extra' income to offset some of the lost sales from Game Pass users.
As we have seen from 'MS' and the way they have offered Games, you get the 'base' game ONLY. CoD (as well as many other games) usually offer a Prestige/Collectors edition - maybe with the first Season Pass, extra Cosmetics, maybe early 'Beta' access etc so will bring in 'money' from Game Pass as CoD gamers pay £35-£40 to 'upgrade' their Game Pass edition to a Prestige/Premium edition. Its still cheaper than the £100+ Premium edition on PS for example but £100+ is still cheaper than buying a Series X to get the same quality experience and a Game Pass Subscription just to get the base game 'free'...
MS may not make as much 'per person' playing on Xbox as they would if it was 'Sold', but they could make 'more' money overall because its being Sold on Nintendo and bringing in more revenue on 'extras' across MORE platforms as they have MORE people in that game/marketstore!
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
@Vaako007 The average gamer, if you really want to there, would most likely be playing on their Mobile Phone as Mobile Gaming is by far the most popular 'Globally'.
Steam-deck or those Handheld PCs may well be a 'compliment' for a PC gamer, but the SteamDeck could be someones first Console instead of a Switch for example and cheaper than a PS5/Series X. Not only that, it probably has a larger Library inc being able to play both Sony and MS games all without a 'monthly' Subscription fee (even if just for 'online' access)
Most gamers aren't that bothered about 4k or RT and paying for Hardware to do '4k RT' is expensive. Handhelds may well be less 'powerful' than a Console, but they aren't required to do more than 1080p on their small 1080p screen. In a few years, you could have Handheld PC's with DLSS 3.0 for example too that are as 'cheap' as the next Playstation but with a MUCH larger Library inc Sony, MS etc games (inc any not playable via BC thanks to emulation), can play anywhere, take you games anywhere etc so 'most' gamers may well opt for that instead...
Why buy a Playstation when all those games are on a 'PC' which means you can play the game on 'cheap' PC handhelds, laptops, tablets or 'high end' gaming rigs, play a massive range of older and PC exclusive games and don't have any other 'Subscriptions' required, cheaper games etc.
The same principle applies to Sony as it does MS with regards to 'selling' games outside of their platform/ecosystem. If your games are available elsewhere, then 'some' gamers will choose to play on that hardware instead of buying their Hardware. If I had a high end gaming rig for example, why buy an Xbox? No point because I can play everything on that PC. Why buy a Playstation? No point because I can wait for Sony to release on PC. Spend £500 on a Handheld PC and I can play Playstation, Xbox, Steam etc games anytime, anywhere with no need for PS+/Game Pass monthly fees if I choose.
Handhelds are more popular than TV connected Consoles - as proven by the majority of gamers playing on Mobile devices - so I wouldn't say they are 'just' for the Road...
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
@Vaako007 That's not strictly true - Steam-Deck is a Handheld Console and many PC gamers buy a Playstation for the 'exclusives' they can't play on PC - now they can.
We are also seeing more and more Handheld Consoles that are not overly expensive considering they are gaming PC's. A RoG Ally for example can play Spider-Man, R&C, Starfield or Forza - as well as all steam, epic, old Playstation/Nintendo/Sega games - a MUCH larger Library than both Playstation 5 and Xbox Series combined.
The only real difference is that Devs will likely give you a 'few' options - maybe a 30fps and 60fps mode to choose between but with a PC, you can tweak the settings to suit your hardware and preference.
When I got my RoG Ally, it was very Similar to buying a Console, plugging it in, updating it, Signing in to my account, waiting for Games to download/install/update to the latest patch and then just playing. In fact, I had immediate access to Game Pass and Steam, each with my Library ready, each with my saves ready so I can continue where I left off etc.
Why spend £500+ on a Console with a more limited Library and locked into that 1 'ecosystem' when you can buy a Handheld PC for example and Play a much larger Library inc all Xbox, most Sony etc games that are often cheaper and much more likely to be Backwards Compatible in the future too?
Yes a gaming PC can be expensive, but its not that 'expensive' if you aren't bothered about '4k' - especially if you don't have a 4k display. Some people may prefer to have 1080/120 without RT than 4k/30 with RT or 4k/60 without it but you may not have that choice on a 'locked' console.
Re: Publisher Nexon Investigating Cause of The Finals' 'Lower-Than-Expected' Performance
Maybe because the majority of the streamers who were used to promote this moved on to the next big thing they were promoting (whether its Grey Zone, Arena, Marvel Rivals, DefiantX etc).
These games maybe 'fun' with the right friends for an hour or two, but the lack of depth, doing the same thing match after match isn't good for longevity. As more and more 'struggle' to establish and compete with Fortnite, Apex, Warzone etc, the more difficult I think it will be for 'new' games as people will be reluctant to play something they fear will be shuttered in a few years...
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
Personally I couldn't care less. I doubt its much different to Sony wanting to put more games on PC - whether they release day/date or some-time after.
Exclusives can still be beneficial for MS in the same way they are for Sony. They can use them to sell Hardware, get people playing in your 'ecosystem' and then sell them elsewhere once they have served that purpose and 'new' games are being used for hardware sales.
Starfield for example could release a year or two - but at that point, its 'old' news on Xbox and games like Fable or Perfect Dark may well be exclusives to get people into the Xbox ecosystem.
Thats similar to Sony with God of War, Spider-Man or Horizon for example - when those games were not selling Hardware and/or Sales have dried up to a trickle, they sell on PC to bring in more money and another PR cycle for Sony.
MS may well do the same - except they already release on PC so the only real option to get that 'extra' money and PR cycle is to release on the only Platforms you can't yet play their Games.
Sony actively choose not to tap into the Xbox market in the same way they have chosen to tap into the PC market. MS may choose to tap more into the Playstation market and I would expect that they'll decide which 'older' games to release. Of course some IP's like CoD, Minecraft will release Day/date anyway...
Re: Strategy Legend Jake Solomon Explains Where Marvel's Midnight Suns Went Wrong
Numerous factors put me off - the Cards was one aspect, the XCOM connection and turn based combat was also a major turn-off.
I wouldn't play any game with that style of Game-play loop regardless of the story or how popular the IP the game-play is wrapped in. Just because the Story maybe great or fact it's a 'Marvel' game doesn't mean that people will buy if the Game-play doesn't appeal.
Re: EA Exploring 'Thoughtful Implementations' of In-Game Advertising
The only way I'd be OK with 'Ads' in games is if they were going for a Realistic look with real branded items - similar to how Car Racing games have their branded vehicle models.It may not seem like advertising, but they are 'advertising' their brand, logo and models.
In other words, if you have a City, you'd see realistic adverts on billboards as you drive around. Instead of seeing 'Burger Queen' or 'McDougals', you get Burger King and McDonalds.
I don't want to have to watch a 30s Advert for Coca-Cola or a world where the only drink is Pepsi and that Logo is EVERYWHERE. However, I can see this being more the case - unfortunately...
Re: Poll: Years Later, How Do You Feel About PlayStation's PC Strategy?
It really doesn't matter or make any difference to me whatsoever. I really don't see how it negatively impacts me whether the game is 'limited' to just Playstation ONLY gamers or that MANY other gamers can play. If anything, exclusives force me to buy Hardware or miss out on the 1 or 2 games a year I can't play EVERYWHERE adding to the Cost.
I'd rather have more choice as to where I choose to play games, not less/no choice.
Re: Warner Bros Revenue Plummets as Suicide Squad Falls Completely Short of Hogwarts Legacy
I, like MANY gamers, could see this happening regardless. The fact that WB couldn't/didn't, especially with other games - like Marvel's Avengers, proving that 'Live Service' isn't what the gamers want.
Publishers see the 'success' of some Live Service game, the sales of MTX in those, and think EVERY game should be made into a 'Live Service' - thinking more about the cosmetics, the 'grind' etc instead of focusing on the Game-play, story, character development etc. Not only is everything so 'mediocre', its often repetitive, grindy and a weak 'story'.
Hogwarts, despite its 'Controversy' was a game that focused on Story, Game-play and what a 'Gamer' would want from that IP and as a result, succeeded...
Re: Sony Doubles Down on Helldivers 2 PSN Requirement by Taking It Off Sale for PC in Numerous Countries
@Intr1n5ic My Email is 'Private' for example - and Sony don't have the best record for Data breaches.
Oh and in some countries, Facial pic and some ID (Passport, Drivers Licence etc) is required to verify age. That's also 'private' and shouldn't be required to play a GAME especially on another Platform - its purely to give Sony more control over who plays their Game even if you are not playing on Sony's Platform!
Re: Sony Doubles Down on Helldivers 2 PSN Requirement by Taking It Off Sale for PC in Numerous Countries
All these Sony Playstation Console ONLY fanboys defending this. I wonder how they'd feel if you bought Battlefield/Fifa and several months later, EA demand you give your private details and link your PS account to EA or you won't be able to play the game you bought anymore. What if there is 'no' EA account in your region so that game you bought will cease to work for you.
What if the only reason EA want you link the account is so that they have more control over you/your access etc. The ability to ban/block you from playing on Playstation with more ease and efficiency instead of having to go through Sony...
Of course its not a 'big deal' if you play on Playstation because you have a PSN account to play on Playstation. You are already locked into what Sony allows you to play and has that Control to censor. Don't want you to see a bit more 'skin' on a Character, they can force devs to censor it for release on 'their' platform and that extends to censoring 'people'. Saying Playstation is for the 'kids' for example could get you 'banned' by Sony despite playing on Steam...
Re: Sony Doubles Down on Helldivers 2 PSN Requirement by Taking It Off Sale for PC in Numerous Countries
Helldivers 2 is now unavailable for purchase in over 150 regions, and Steam is issuing refunds for the game, regardless of playtime.
Now, due to PSN not being available in over 150 countries where Helldivers 2 was previously purchasable on Steam, the game has been delisted in them, according to SteamDb.
Players are reporting that the service is issuing refunds for the game, regardless of playtime. Typically, players have two hours to decide whether or not they want a refund, but Valve has seemingly relaxed these rules in the wake of the PSN change.
That's all from VGC.
Whilst PSN may well have been 'required', until May 3rd, Sony themselves had stipulated PSN was 'optional' on their own website. From May 3rd, they changed that wording to say 'some' games may require a PSN account.
The 'reason' they gave on Twitter is to make it easier/quicker for them to BAN players - particularly those on PC/Steam. There is more 'legal' hoops to jump through to Ban players on other Platforms and impose their 'censorship' rules.
Doesn't matter if you bought the game on Steam, if Sony decides you can't play it anymore, this gives them that control.
Re: Talking Point: Have Sony's Third-Party PS5 Deals Made Up for Its Lack of First-Party Games?
@Reptilio Why play on Xbox if you can play those games plus Sonys on PlayStation?
Those 'Xbox' games were released first on Xbox and can be played 'free' with a Game Pass Subscription. Why buy a Playstation when Sony's games are on PC and Xbox games are too - as well as all the PC 'exclusives', emulation etc?
Assuming MS do release more games on Playstation day/date (which we know they will with Call of Duty and Minecraft) instead of waiting a year or more, on Xbox/PC, you could play those for 'Free' but on PS, it will cost you $70+, there is an 'incentive'. A PC and 'Game Pass' for example could get you ALL the Xbox games and still play Sony's games too...
Xbox won't make up ground in terms of Console sales, but then they don't need to sell Consoles like Sony/Nintendo do. If the whole point was to sell 'consoles', then they would 'never' release their games 'day/date' on PC or Cloud to get people to buy a Console to play Forza, Starfield, Hellblade 2 etc. Instead, they integrated 'Xbox' into Windows and now are more concerned with getting Gamers into their 'ecosystem' and IP's.
With games like Starfield, Indiana Jones, Hellblade 2, Avowed etc, those aren't coming to Playstation, at least not 'day 1', then you have 'exclusives' to entice people in - much like Horizon, Spider-Man, Days Gone or R&C did for Sony, even if these are now on PC. I don't need a PS console, I can play those on a Steam Deck or Win11 handheld PC 'Console'.
At the end of the day, Exclusives are an incentive to get people in to an ecosystem so I expect MS to keep some games 'exclusive' for at least a period of time. But that's not the 'only' incentive to buy Hardware - other incentives include Costs, Services (like Game Pass) and/or preferences. You may prefer to 'buy' the games you want, prefer Sony's ecosystem or controller etc and willing to wait for ANY Xbox game - another may prefer to play on PC and wait for any Sony games to come, another may prefer to buy an Xbox and play whatever Game Pass games (inc 3rd Party) they have access to for a low cost gaming experience.
Who knows what the future looks like, but right now for example, I feel I have far less to look forward to on Playstation - just Wolverine, yet on Xbox, I have Hellblade, Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution etc so if I was considering either a Series X or PS5 right now, Series X looks most promising - and even games like CoD, Diablo, Doom, Wolfenstein, Fallout etc are likely to be on Game Pass in the Future...
Re: Talking Point: Have Sony's Third-Party PS5 Deals Made Up for Its Lack of First-Party Games?
From my perspective, I don't feel like I have much to look forward to with only Wolverine as the only officially revealed game that interested me. I have no interest in Marathon, Concord or whatever else they have confirmed.
I'm not a Final Fantasy or JRPG fan either, don't enjoy Souls-like games so the majority of 3rd Party Exclusives haven't excited me and certainly won't make up for a lack of games like Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone, Resistance etc games I would want. ND had 4 big games during the PS3 era, yet just 2 during the PS4 era (not counting re-releases on newer hardware) and 'nothing' since LoU2. SuckerPunch too have only released 1 game since Infamous 2nd Son - Ghost of Tsushima. with sequels like GoW:R and H:FW taking over 5yrs, It seems these studio's will release 1 or 2 games a generation.
I'd be more concerned though if the Playstation didn't get much 3rd Party support (whether Exclusive, timed-exclusive or not) as I only care whether I can access the games where I'd prefer to play them and 'exclusivity' takes away that choice. The lack of 'exclusives' doesn't mean the lack of great games to play...
@Kraaatos It is - its not made by a First Party Studio - Returnal too at the time of release wasn't a First Party Studio game either. It also released day/date on PC/Steam too - so also on the Steam Deck, a handheld 'console'. They 'could' become a First Party Studio in the future.
Re: Brand New Batman: Arkham Game Is a VR Exclusive on Meta Quest 3
Makes games no-one really wanted for the most popular hardware in a blatant Money grabbing exercise and makes a game that would likely sell on mainstream consoles for a 'niche' VR market...
And you wonder why the Industry is struggling.
Re: PS4 Classic Horizon Zero Dawn Set to Leave PS Plus Extra
To be honest, It could just be to get people to buy it before it is removed and they lose access. It may also mean that Horizon Forbidden West could be coming to the Service to drive more Subscriptions. People may have to rush through or buy H:ZD to finish it before H:FW comes.
Chances are, if they are porting it to PS5, it wouldn't be a 'free' upgrade anyway.
Re: Talking Point: What's Next for Xbox Games on PS5, PS4?
I voted No, I have no interest in any of them - although that should be expanded to 'no interest in buying them on PS5' as I have a Series X, PC and Game Pass as well as my PS5.
It makes no sense to buy on PS5 when I can and/or have played these already on Xbox. It makes more sense to buy games I can't play on Sub Services.
Of course MS will bring more 'new' games to Playstation - games like Call of Duty or Minecraft will certainly release the same day on Playstation as Xbox.
I don't know about their AAA Single Player games as they are the Games that are likely to sell Hardware and Game Pass Subs. Its what they are likely to use in the same way Sony uses games like Spider-Man, God of War or Horizon. Online games though may well be better to release everywhere and grow the Community so that 'friends/family' can play together regardless of their Platform choice. Starfield or Indiana Jones are Single Player games so don't have Friends/family 'excluded' from playing together because of their Console preference.
Maybe Single Player games will 'eventually' release on PS - once they have served their purpose of selling Subs/hardware - much like Sony releasing their games eventually on PC when they think they won't affect their Console sales. But I won't hold my breath or 'expect' these at some point...
Re: Alan Wake 2 Yet to Recoup Dev, Marketing Expenses as Tencent Raises Stake
I doubt a Physical release would have made that much difference. Some of the Digital purchasers would likely have bought Physical instead with much lower profit margins (due to manufacturing, distribution etc costs as well as Retailer competition bringing the price lower) so would need even more people to buy to break even.
No game to me is worth that cost. Red Dead Redemption 2 for example was a much 'bigger' game, equally as stunning for its time with incredible attention to detail in its presentation and animations, yet cost me a LOT less only a few years ago. I can play Control (Ultimate Edition) for next to nothing, if not 'free' on a sub service, so why buy this when I have so many other Games to play for a LOT less money and this will be cheap in a sale or come to a sub service soon enough...
Re: Xbox Confirms June Showcase, Bound to Feature Some PS5 Games
Of course they'll be games that will be playable on Playstation - they often showcase indies and 3rd Party games that will be releasing on PS day/date - and numerous IP's on PS too - from games that existed before MS took over - Fallout76/ESO, CoD, Diablo etc (new DLC maybe?) to games made under MS - Minecraft (Legends & Dungeons), Sea of Thieves and Grounded etc.
In the past, we have seen games like AC: Valhalla, Lies of P, Plague Tale etc appear during MS's show - games that released on Playstation too and of course Like a Dragon, Persona etc have appeared on the Xbox stage as well.
Re: Fallout 4 (PS5) - Timeless Gameplay Loop Stuck in an Outdated RPG
To be honest, I felt Fallout 4 was dated on release and felt more like Fallout 3 - with a bit more colour and clunky base building bolted on.
Starfield certainly has it's Bethesda style that hasn't really 'evolved' from Fallout - it's Combat felt better, more fun and refined, but it's the 'typical' missions, structure and style to all Bethesda games that I think hurts it - people expected Bethesda to 'evolve' - not keep copy, paste and reskinning to suit the IP.
If they made Fallout 5, I bet it would look/feel like Fallout 4 with some 'new' mechanic (maybe boosters from Starfield and that more refined 'combat' or some Procedurally generated things popping up) - but it would still 'look/feel' like a Bethesda game that will still feel dated by other RPG standards LOL
Re: Fallout 4 Next Gen Version Is Out Now on PS5, Xbox, and PC
I believe a few games from PS4 PS+ didn't get 'free' upgrades to PS5 unless you actually 'owned' the game - not borrowing it indefinitely (or until your PS+ Subscription lapses.
In other words, not those with 'Conditional' licences to play - the Condition is to keep paying for your PS+ to keep accessing these games - which to me is 'fair' enough - after all, you didn't 'buy' the game and your subscription was only for the 'PS4' version - which you can still play via BC.
Re: PlayStation Studios: All Sony First-Party Developers and What They're Working On
Still a LOT of unknowns. The 'only' confirmed First Party game I am interested in at this point is 'Wolverine'. Games like Concord, FairGame$, Marathon etc do not interest me at all and I doubt that I'll be interested in a 'Horizon' Live Service too if that is confirmed.
Maybe 3rd Party partners will have games in the near future that will appeal but right now, I am not excited by Sony's future 1st Party Games.
Re: Avatar Game Gets a Rare 40FPS Mode in New PS5 Patch
@NEStalgia To be honest, I'd prefer a steady 40fps on a 60hz screen than an unsteady 30fps - but I'd prefer a Locked 30fps to a locked 40fps on that set-up.
Its not just slight judder, but inconsistent motion as you either get inconsistent Frame persistence (1 frame displayed for 2 refreshes and the next frame only displayed for 1 frame), Screen tear (where the screen refreshes with only some of the 'new' frame displayed whilst the rest is the old frame persisting) or some other issue.
At 30fps, you may have more of a noticeable jump as fast moving objects move a greater distance between frames - but its Consistent and good motion blur can make it look really smooth.
Obviously I would 'generally' prefer a locked 40fps on a 120hz display to a locked 30fps - but I don't ALWAYS play in 60fps Performance modes as the 30fps mode not only looks significantly better, it offers a locked 30fps compared to a 45-60fps unstable frame rate. I prefer a 'consistent' frame rate.
Re: Avatar Game Gets a Rare 40FPS Mode in New PS5 Patch
40fps is exactly half-way between 30fps and 60fps in terms of Frame Time - 30fps is 33.3ms per frame, 40fps is 25ms per frame and 60fps is 16.6ms.
It also fits perfectly in a 120hz container like 30 and 60fps. You get 4x Refreshes per Frame at 30fps, 3x Refreshes per Frame at 40fps and 2x refreshes per frame at 60fps.
Part of the reason 40fps isn't and hasn't been common on Consoles comes down to Displays. Until recently, we didn't have TV's with 120hz panels or VRR. 40fps doesn't fit nicely in a 60hz container so 30fps (2x refreshes per frame) became the 'minimum'. With the majority of TV's still unlikely to offer 120hz, there has been 'little' reason to optimise for the 'few' that can use that mode. Those with 60hz TV's though will have to settle for 30fps or 60fps modes.
I would expect it to become more Common as more and more TV's have at least 120hz Panels with more and more people upgrading from their existing 60hz TV's. These TV's are also becoming cheaper too.
Nice to see more Devs adding this feature and I hope to see more do so in the future.
Re: Ex-Psygnosis, WipEout, Skate Devs Announce New Studio Starlight Games
Been a LONG time since Psygnosis existed - before Sony bought them and they became Sony Computer Entertainment. That was over 30yrs ago now...
Re: Latest Sony Patent Wants to Take the Grind Out of Games by Playing Them For You
So instead of watching Twitch or youtube streamers playing the game, you can now watch AI play your games instead...
Anything that is considered 'grindy' or excessively time consuming, that to me is 'bad' game design. I can understand how some things may have a 'time' factor, like waiting for crops to grow or base building, but I'd rather have better AI - AI 'workers' that you can assign to tasks that can take the monotony out of certain repetitive tasks leaving you 'free' to go off and play other aspects. If you don't want to tend to crops, finish building your base, collect certain resources etc, your AI companions can do those instead...
Re: Embracer Group Is Now Splitting into Three Separate Companies
I thought Tomb Raider was now owned by Amazon.
Re: Fallout 4 Sales Up 7,500% in Europe as Bethesda Series Dominates
@lindos 3 - 3, New Vegas and 4 make 3 Fallout games. 1 & 2 were quite different in design and PC Only I believe, any others were spin-offs (like Shelter) that didn't appeal...
Re: It Looks Like Kena: Bridge of Spirits Is Heading to New Platforms
@Kidfried Of course Game Pass will affect some Games and their sale figures - its only natural after all that gamers, especially those with a LOT more Choice on what games they 'want' to fill their limited leisure time with, and in a Cost of Living crisis, will likely be less inclined to spend money if they don't need to.
If you have limited gaming time and there are games that appeal 'more' with much lower cost, it doesn't make sense to spend more. 'New' releases aren't just competing against other 'new' releases that week, they are competing with the 1000's of Games you have access to with your Hardware. If you'd rather play an older game now on Sale or a game in a Sub service, it makes sense not to buy.
Xbox gamers will buy Games they can't get on Game Pass - but they have to be anticipated, wanted more than all the other games you have access to.
If this released today on Xbox for example for £30, I'm sure it would sell some copies. I myself may not choose to buy because I could fill my limited Gaming time by playing Diablo 4, Lies of P, Sea of Thieves, Starfield, Mass Effect Trilogy, Star Wars: Jedi Survivor, MLB24 or any of the other hundreds of games I could play for 'less' than £30 via sales or Sub Services.
If the game is 'good' enough, appeals enough and/or at the 'right' price, Gamers will buy - its just that Competition for gamers 'time' is more Competitive on Xbox because you also have 'new' day 1 releases in Game Pass. Hundreds of games competing just for your 'time'.
Re: Fallout 4 Sales Up 7,500% in Europe as Bethesda Series Dominates
@NoCode23 I still have my 360 and PS3, (as well as both XB1S & X and both a PS4 and PS4 Pro) so was never too concerned about what 'Old' games were playable on my PS5. I was merely curious for those with only a Playstation to game on if they could still play Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
I know I can play these as well as 4 or 76 on my Series X and even if I didn't own most of them (I don't own 76), I can still play via Game Pass on that console or even on my PC's.
Re: Fallout 4 Sales Up 7,500% in Europe as Bethesda Series Dominates
@carlos82 That's what I thought... New Vegas was my Favourite Fallout game - although never played the first 2 or 76. I haven't finished 4 either so may return once its patched for current hardware. Its one of those 'backlog' games in my collection...
Re: Fallout 4 Sales Up 7,500% in Europe as Bethesda Series Dominates
Are Fallout 3 and New Vegas actually playable on PS5? I have a PC and Series X so can play those games anyway if I wanted to revisit them.