BAMozzy

@NEStalgia I do tend to agree with you with regards to gaming/game design. I don't really feel gaming has actually changed in the past couple of Generations - the type of games we were getting over a decade ago are still the games we get today.

Open world for example maybe has become 'more' open as streaming/loading has significantly improved meaning you have less 'dead' areas designed for longer loading/streaming times. But that's also benefited other games - less/no Door opening/lift based loading screens for example.

However, the basic game-play loops haven't really changed - the Physics and AI is still quite limited - maybe even less Physics in some games (Battlefield for example) which has virtually no physics destruction today. AI still doesn't seem significantly different and worlds seem equally as Static despite looking increasingly more dense and/or realistic.

It doesn't surprise me that games from a decade (or more) ago still hold up well today - whether they are playable via BC or have been ported to modern hardware with more 'modern' visuals. I'd still rather play games like Mass Effect, Dead Space, Uncharted, Tomb Raider etc than many 'new' releases that may 'look' more modern/impressive, but have 'generic/bland' characters, stories, game-play loops etc.

Arguably circumstances back in 2012-3 (another Financial crisis with people predicting the 'death' of Consoles) and the decision to go with 'weak' CPU's to keep costs down and GPU's to make 360/PS3 era games 'Look' next gen and 'full' HD affected game design we are still feeling today. Games like AC: Unity with all that unique AI or Just Cause with its Physics Destruction really Struggled and why I feel AI/Physics maybe worse than the PS3/360 era.

Graphics are our 'first' impression - we either see Screenshots or Trailers long before we get any 'hands-on'. Even little changes between trailer and release (Puddles) set people off and a game that 'looks' dated, especially AAA+, is almost dead before it releases. So I can understand why it maybe a priority over Game-play, writing etc (Immortals of Aveum) Style over Substance.

As for Haptics, that's a personal thing. I'm OK with some rumble but I hate the Adaptive Triggers on the DS5, loathe gyro-aiming or Gyro controls etc. I also don't want to be blowing on, being heard by mics built in to controllers so I'm OK with it only being on Playstation. I never finished Astro's Playroom because I hated these features. Each to their own - but if they were 'standard' then chances are, some games wouldn't give you the Choice to turn them off.

@Flaming_Kaiser Again from 'your' perspective which is completely different to mine and others here. No game is Worth over £50 to me and I can justify that by knowing that ALL these games WILL be sold for less than £50 soon enough and in the meantime, there are 'equally' as good, if not better games available to play from 'free' (thanks to Sub services) up to '£50'

You can argue all you want about how much time or 'value' you got out of Hogwarts Legacy or Elden Ring, maybe games like God of War: Ragnarok at/around launch, but I can play them today for less than £30 each. If you bought at £70, and I buy at £30 or less - who gets better 'Value'?

In my opinion, instead of putting prices up to struggle to 1m sales, half that price and sell 2m instead- after all most of these companies will come out and say their game was a Success with 1m sales...

Most the costs are in mis-management and massive paychecks for Publisher CEO's. Some games have had a bigger Marketing budget than it cost developing - some real-live TV Ad for the Superbowl show, Massive billboards or on Public transport. They had all that time and money yet still put out an 'old' game essentially wrapped in some pretty graphics.

They are not 'bigger' than last gen games - certainly not more 'Complex' as they are often sequels built on the underlying framework of their predecessor. What about all those 'remasters' - ports of OLD games, old stories, old characters etc that were written and developed years ago cutting huge chunks of workload yet still expect £70...

As I said, no game is worth it to me - just to be in that 'first' group of people to play something, I didn't buy 'Hogwarts' for example at launch, but I can buy it now for less than £30 and STILL get the entire experience, maybe better now its been patched etc than those that spent £70. I can buy GoW:R or whatever game you 'deemed' worth it at £60+ when its £25 or less and get much better 'value' that I deem worthy of the Cost.

I really enjoyed Aspects of Destiny but certain things pushed me away. to me, it felt like my time wasn't valued - it was just about extracting 'money' by making older content 'useless' to make you keep grinding and/or paying for new gear/content.

I wouldn't buy 'Destiny 3' if they followed the same pattern as their predecessors.

@mrraditch I remember - but you are not factoring the cost of cartridge which was around $30-$35 before you factor in software, printing, booklets, etc and of course dispatch and retailer profit margin on top - often a third party in between as a 'warehouse' for retailers to buy 'stock' from and they didn't work for free...

Discs cost 'pence' to make by comparison and now digital cuts out so many costs so don't play the N64 card! That's why Console games 'cost' more than PC because 'Console' Tax and Legacy of Cartridge days...

@Flaming_Kaiser I stopped going to the cinema 20yrs ago+. It became a LOT more cost effective to wait for the VHS/DVD even Bluray to come out and watch it 'forever'. Now I can watch new releases from the comfort of my own home if I'm willing to pay a fee - a LOT less than it costs to take the family to the cinema!

No game is worth that much to me - I couldn't care less if they are spending so much more money on 'graphics' and making them run on Hardware - but the underlying Game is still not that different from last gen or the gen before - wrapped in increasingly more impressive graphics!

It may well be worth every bit the 'cost' to you, but no game can justify paying over £50 for - especially within months, those games are often less than that. Those games aren't offering something so 'new' that I must experience it at that price when I could play many other 'similar' games for a Lot less cost - even if they aren't quite so 'pretty'!

Wait for the devs to actually deliver the 'full' game and full content they promise, fully realised and polished, bugs all fixed etc - the game is maybe then 'worth' paying for in the first place - then maybe its also at the right 'price point' too to actually buy...

@Flaming_Kaiser You can disagree you want - that's your opinion and doesn't change the fact that those games are no 'better' for being that price and certainly the length/hours worth is irrelevant. I can buy those games when they are much lower in price and get as much, if not more from them.

I can go back to PS3 era games that I played - I had hundreds of hours in games like Mass Effect, CoD4, GTA3/4, RDR or Fallout for example back in the 360/PS3 era when games cost much less. How much is Mass Effect Legendary Edition today in a Sale - maybe even free on EA Play with more hours potential than BG3 or DD2.

I'd rather buy ME:Legendary, maybe even 2 or 3 other games for my '£70' than spend it on just 1 game that will be much cheaper in 6-12months regardless. I can 'wait' a few months until its less than £40 for example so who gets the 'better' value - you or paid £60+ to play it 'sooner' but maybe had more technical issues and/or 'less' content than someone who buys the game at £30 when its patched and updated with new content?

As I said, you can disagree as much as you want but I'd rather have the Cash in my bank account and wait for sales until those 'same' games are significantly cheaper that still offer the same Story etc.

To me, NO game is worth $70/£70. All I see is that Graphics are improving - as you'd expect with newer hardware, but the Stories, the Characters, the game-play loops etc are no better than we had on the PS3 gen.

That $70/£70 is the price at launch when the game is often at its worst - requiring post release patches and/or additional content/features promised. Wait a few months and the game is cheaper and often in a better state too. So you are paying more for the 'privilege' of being one of the 'first' to play a rushed out mess of a game that will be improved and cheaper over time.

Its not as if modern hardware doesn't have a LOT of games competing for our time and money. A 'new' $70 release isn't just competing with all the other 'new' games that week, but all the games in sales, sub services etc inc all those 'last gen' games you may have missed thanks to BC. Why spend £70 on one game when you could buy many games in a sale or even save your money and play whatever 'free' games you have from Sub Service like PS+.

As I said, no game is worth £70 to ME - not when I can wait months until its 50% (or less) in sales and have 100's of games in my backlog to play as well as free games due to Sub services so I don't 'need' to spend £70 just to play a game at/near launch...

@3Above Or you could argue that Larian used their target audience to feed back and help them shape the game for 'gamers' specifically - get feedback on what works and/or what didn't to help them create a Game for 'Gamers'.

It's not like other Studio's where they are known for making Single Player games suddenly having to make an Online game with MTX. Look at Rocksteady and going from Batman to Suicide Squad, Crystal Dynamix from Tomb Raider to Marvels Avengers.

I wonder how many maybe put off from Dragons Dogma 2 because of MTX when BG3 doesn't. Would you buy Horizon if you knew they be selling 'extras' inc Fast Travel and custom outfits, custom weapons etc or be 'put-off' by yet another Live Service model forced into a Single Player and the cost to consumer 'starts' at $70 but could end up costing a LOT more.

When you buy BG3, its all included in that price - no extras. Its not built to 'sell' extras, designed to extract more money from the fans of the IP etc...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner I think that Larian made a game that they thought Gamers would appreciate, a game that was built for gamers first and foremost which is why it succeeded.

Many other Publishers are pushing the Studio's to make 'live service' games - games designed to keep players spending money on extra characters, cosmetics etc. Take any Live Service 'template', wrap your IP skin around it, chuck it out and hope people buy into it. Marvels: Avengers, Gotham Knights, Suicide Squad, etc.

Even Sony were jumping into Live Service development - something their vocal Playerbase weren't happy about and now we hear they have 'cancelled' a few (inc Last of us Factions), reduced their Console sales expectations and over 900 Jobs lost.

What Larian are saying is that the Publishers themselves have got themselves into this position by their Greed - all wanting that '1' Live Service game they can milk, bring in millions for little effort of changing the colour on some Cosmetic and selling it for a ridiculous amount, rather than making the 'game' the Players want, writing compelling characters or stories, writing compelling side activities/quests etc. Its all about making something to sell additional content to make as much money as possible - Greed!!

@RicksReflection Think of it more in terms of 'time' and really only effects RT. If it takes 'less' CPU to achieve the same RT (or better) quality, that makes a difference between whether or not its 'too' expensive to implement at 60fps. But if the PS5 isn't doing RT at 60fps, then its actually adding 'work' to the PS5 Pro CPU to add it for Pro - its just 'cheaper' to add on Pro.

The difference is that the cost (in time) is reduced on PS5 Pro. That doesn't mean they have 'extra' to allocate for something else, it just means that it may not be as 'cost prohibitive' at 60fps as it would be on PS5.

You have a Frame Time budget - whether 33.3ms for 30fps or 16.6ms for 60fps. If RT costs '8ms' per frame on PS5, it may only cost '2ms' on Pro - 8ms is a huge amount of your Frame Budget at 60fps and why its often sacrificed on PS5 in performance modes - you get RT at 30fps or no RT at 60fps. 8ms is half the budget at 60fps, and under a quarter at 30fps.

What the article and everything else is indicating is that the PS5 Pro is much more 'likely' to offer RT at 60fps where the PS5 RT modes will be 30fps. If the game can 'run' at 60fps with RT on PS5 Pro, it will certainly run at 60fps on PS5 without it.

If it can't do 60fps (or at least over 55fps) due to CPU limitations WITHOUT RT on a PS5, then the PS5 Pro won't be able to do 60fps with/without RT either.

The PS5 actually has a lot more CPU processing over 33.3ms than the PS5 Pro CPU running 10% faster (max speed) over 16.6ms. Every 'cycle' with a 3.6Ghz CPU is 3.6bn cycles per second or 0.06bn per frame at 60fps or 0.12bn per frame at 30fps - you double the CPU resources by reducing the Frame rate. 3.85Ghz at 60fps or (or 0.064bn per frame) does NOT beat a 3.5Ghz CPU (or 0.117 per frame) at 30fps. It has almost double the amount of Cycles, therefore processing ability.

Despite the fact it has a LOT less time and 'less' processing power, it can still offer RT at 60fps where the PS5 would 'struggle' - because RT doesn't 'cost' as much frame time or CPU resources when 60fps seriously drops the amount of time, therefore the amount of 'processing' per frame the CPU can do.

@RicksReflection It doesn't 'quite' work that way - its more about 'time' in ms rather than doing a LOT more with that. The cost to add RT in PS5 Pro may take 10ms of time but only 2ms of time on PS5 Pro which may enable them to hit the 16.6ms frame budget - something that 'Stops' them being able to add RT at 60fps on PS5.

It enables them maybe to do other things with that 'budget' - ie have a higher base resolution, maybe 'higher' visual settings - better draw distance for example - but the game will still run at 60fps on PS5 without 'RT' too - it's saying because the 'new' Hardware built for dedicating to accelerated RT/AI (like nVidia's Tensor cores built into nvidia GPU's do - look at DF AMD/RTX PC comparisons not just the Consoles and you'd have a much better understanding) will free up so much CPU workload that it 'would' require to implement on PS5 to that level that its likely to be 'possible' to hit 60fps with, if not much better RT than the PS5 can do at 30fps.

In other words, it can offer 'nvidia' quality RT instead of 'AMD Console' Quality RT with the same, if not 'lower' CPU time cost - but if everything else, without RT can't get above 55fps due to CPU, this WON'T be the miracle pixie dust magic you seem to be pinning your hopes on...

I'm only being realistic based on years of experience....

@RicksReflection I'll put it simply - they have a way of Running RT on PS5 Pro that is a LOT less CPU intensive then - as nvidia does with its 'tensor/ai/cores'. So that may make the difference between RT at 60fps or NOT with this because its not really adding to the CPU load...

That means PS5 is also able to do a 'Performance' 60fps 4k mode 'without' RT and will look more like a low res, FSR upscaled 4k with noticeable artefacts...

It doesn't mean that it will suddenly free up CPU resources ithe PS5 isn't/wasn't using them for anyway It just means they can add RT features at 'lower' cost than it costs on PS5 to achieve the SAME feature - in other words, if its 4k/30 with RT on PS5 in Quality mode, you may get a 4k/60 with RT on Pro because the 'cost' to add it is not as high but PS5 could still offer a 60fps no RT mode

That's what the article is saying...

Expecting BG3, the way it is now for example, to go from its 20-30fps in that town section to 60fps which isn't possible on the much higher spec Hardware with a very 'mature' AI upscaling solution (DLSS) that has even more CPU cores, faster clock speeds, More 'on chip' GPU cores, more cores for AI, RT etc, a LOT more RAM and many other benefits' is unrealistic.

I do expect 60fps games - they exist 'now' on PS5 so PS5 Pro will deliver too. The Pro 60fps modes should look 'closer' maybe even better than PS5's 'Quality' mode even if running at lower res to hit 60fps because of PSSR - 1080p AI upscaled with 'higher' visual settings is likely to look better than say 1440-1800p with traditional upscaling or 1920x2160 CB rendering. But that's if the CPU is not limiting the game to 30fps on PS5 but more that 720-1080p, lower visual quality settings and with FSR to upscale to 4k looks too ugly and/or distracting to warrant offering a 'Performance' mode on PS5.

@RicksReflection I have NEVER ruled out 60fps on PS5 Pro - what I have said though is that if its 'limited' to 30fps because of CPU limitations - as we SEE in MANY games without Ray Tracing today, then a 10% boost isn't going to make any significant difference.

However, we do have games running at 60fps and even above 60fps on PS5 - so Games will still be '60fps' on PS5 Pro. Games that may 'offer' performance modes but 'struggle' to lock to a 60fps will likely be more 'consistent' - perhaps even lock to 60fps.

What this is saying is that IF a game is say 4k/30 on PS5, they could potentially drop the resolution to 1080p and use PSSR to look as good (if not better with higher visual settings inc RT because its a LOT cheaper at 1080p) and get 60fps with the GPU savings (as long as the game isn't CPU limited).

If you have 100 enemies on screen, each with their own AI and Physics, each with their own hit detection etc, that doesn't change the CPU workload - it still has to calculate the AI, Physics etc for 100 enemies, tell the GPU where they are, what to draw and call in all the Assets for those 100 enemies. You can 'reduce' the Data by reducing the quality of the textures and therefore reduce the data and decompression load with 'lower' res but it doesn't reduce the amount of AI, Physics, Draw Calls etc the CPU has to do.

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. These CPU limited games are still CPU limited on PC with far more capable CPU's, significantly higher RAM and Dedicated GPU's with Hardware accelerated AI Upscaling/Frame generation (DLSS). If an RTX 4090 with paired with intel i9 (a CPU that costs more than a PS5) can't deliver '60fps' at 1080p with DLSS, then how do you expect a PS5 Pro to do so? That 'PC' has more RAM in its GPU alone than a PS5 Pro, let alone 32GB+ of 'System RAM'. It can't do '60fps' at 540p because its not about the GPU, which is not even out of 1st gear, its because the CPU CANNOT do its workload in 16.6ms to hit 60fps. You'd get the same 45-50fps at 540p or 1080p because its NOT the GPU that's preventing 60fps, its the CPU...

Those are the games that I say won't be '60fps'. They may 'present' 60fps by artificially inserting extra frames to create the 'look' of 60fps, but if the CPU takes 20ms to do everything, the '10%' boost may save 2ms for example, but that's still not enough to hit 60fps. A game running at 55fps on PS5 could be 60fps on PS5 Pro.

It really does depend on how the game was built. BG3 doesn't run at 60fps on the best PC in that town area, regardless of how you scale the Graphics down because the issue is CPU. Busy towns have a LOT more AI so a LOT more CPU work that doesn't scale with Resolution - it scales with number of AI so you have to reduce AI, limit the number of characters (as you often see in Racing games - the watching crowds are 'reduced' or dumbed down in Performance modes to reduce CPU work..

I'm sure there will be 60 even 120fps games. I'm sure they'll have great graphics that look superior to Base PS5, but if GTA6 or any Game that is CPU limited to 30fps on Consoles, its unlikely to run at 60fps on PS5 Pro - not without fundamental changes to the Game design (like reducing AI, dumbing down CPU workload etc) to free up enough 'overhead' to reduce the Frame time from 33.3ms by half to 16.6ms.

@RicksReflection Most of it makes sense and what we see already in many cases. I mean if the PS5 has to drop to say 720p to achieve a '60fps' mode, then PS5 Pro could either increase the RT effects at 720p, increase the resolution to say 1080p, maybe even keep at 720p but 'unlock' the Frame rate to be above 60fps, or if a game is relying on Dynamic Resolution Scaling to lock to 30/60fps, then maybe the PS5 Pro will not drop resolution - its all very similar to the PS4 Pro or XB1X - even similar to the Series X vs Series S which also has some 'performance' modes not available on 'weaker' base hardware.

The point is that if the PS5 can't offer '60fps' due to CPU limitations, then the PS5 Pro won't either - but will likely offer some other enhancements (like Higher Quality RT, Higher Base Resolutions, tighter lock to whatever 'Frame Rate' (inc 40fps) or not drop 'resolution' at all) compared to PS5.

If the reason the PS5 can't hit 60fps consistently is GPU/Graphic settings (ie would look low res, low quality image) then PS5 Pro may have well be able to deliver 60fps. The PS5 has games that are 720p in 'Performance' modes that look really bad in motion with FSR 2.0 artefacts and may drop frames too - but PS5 Pro could deliver a MUCH higher quality looking image maybe 1080p with much better upscaling than FSR so 'performance' mode actually looks significantly better on Pro.

Games like BG3 for example which drops below 30fps on PS5 due to CPU limitations isn't likely to be 'enhanced' to 60fps by PS5 Pro - they may well 'increase' the base resolution, increase the visual settings, have a much tighter lock to 30fps AND/OR not drop Resolution if DRS is utilised - as per both this and that article - its not saying that Devs have to try and force or 'fake' 60fps (with Frame Generation).

That article and this state that games 'must' be enhanced - so even if it has a 'higher' quality RT setting, better than the PS5, it is 'enhanced' - even if the resolution and frame rate remains the SAME. If the Pro version of the game drops resolution or frame rate 'LESS' than PS5, its 'enhanced'. It maybe a 4k/60 PS5 game with DRS and avg 1800/55 so the Pro 'enhances' that by not dropping res/frame rates so you get 4k/60.

There are games that can't run at '60fps' on PS4 Pro (4.2TB GPU), XB1X (6TB GPU with more RAM) than the Series 'S' and its tiny 4TB GPU because the issue is the CPU. Therefore if its CPU limited to 30fps, then the PS5 Pro will be too - enhancing the game in other ways - higher Starting Res, less reliant on DRS, Higher Graphical settings inc maybe higher quality RT in use.

It's exactly what I'd expect and have been saying....

As long as they are honest and not using it to mislead people into believing they are getting something they aren't. Its bad enough claiming its a '4k' game when its clearly running well below that resolution and using whatever 'method' of upscaling the hardware has (whether it was Chequerboard, FSR, DLSS or PSSR) but I don't want to see devs claiming its a '60' fps game if its only running at 30fps and using Frame generation to smooth out the motion to 'look' like its 60fps.

When we only had 'basic' upscaling at the start of the PS4/XB1 gen, the way a game ran on that hardware 'mattered' - whether it was 900p or 1080p. Even if they weren't delivering what they said, as in Killzone: Shadowfall, that mattered.

If the PS5 Pro is actually running games at say 1080/30 and using PSSR to 'upscale' and create the look of a 4k/60 game - be honest that its still a 1080/30 game with PSSR. Its no different from running a game at say 1080/60 on PC and using DLSS to 'look' more 4k/120 - the game is still running at 1080/60.

I have nothing against using Upscaling - especially if they can clear up the upscaling artefacts much better with AI/ML - but I do object to this being a 'crutch' to devs, misleading to consumers (its not '4k' if its 'upscaled' however good the upscaling is). No-one would accept that 900p was better or even as good as Native 1080p with the 'traditional' upscaling methods so why think DLSS or PSSR is - Its gives better results than traditional upscaling, but its still an upscaled image.

1080/30 with AI enhancements to get to 4k/60 may look and appear 'better' than a game running at 1440/60 and relying on FSR2 to upscale to 4k but I'd rather play 1440/60 as the game is running 'better' and updating 2x as often for lower input lag and a more responsive gaming experience.

@Flaming_Kaiser I've not made assumptions - I've clearly indicated that there is a big difference between what is the 'source' (as in what the game on the hardware is producing) and using whatever method to 'upscale' and/or boost frame rates doesn't change the fact the Source is running a certain way.

Hardware upscaling or Frame Generation - as we see with the latest FSR and DLSS options, one using AI/ML and 'Hardware' to do that (as PSSR and the 'design' leaks also indicated to be 'similar' to nVidia) is only making that 'source' content look better than you expect a lower res/lower frame rate game to look.

the point is that DLSS can make 1080p 'look' like its Native 4k but its still a 1080p 'Source' image. Frame Generation can make 60fps 'look' like its 120fps, that 'extra' smoothness you get instead of the bigger 'jump' movement creates between frames you get at lower frame rates.

I have NO issue with utilising their limited budget frame time (whether 33.3ms or 16.6ms) to better use than just pushing up 'resolution'. If it takes 2ms to 'upsample' 1080p to 4k with NO artefacts, but Native 4k at the SAME settings would add 15ms to their Frame time, i'd rather they use this method - but be honest about the fact its running at 1080p, not Native 4k and using WHATEVER upscaling to produce the final '4k' image you get.

I am OK with them using FSR it may well be better than 'traditional' upscaling, but again be honest - it may well be 1440p CB with FSR2.0 to 4k so be honest.

Frame generation exists too - and there is NO way you can make a '30fps' game 'feel' like a 60fps game because the game updates at 30x a second, generates a frame every 33.3ms, there is also added delay as Frame generation requires the 'next' frame to have a 'start' and 'Finish' point to 'generate' its extra frame, that adds to the input Lag.

Yes this AI PSSR could well be the 'BEST' on the market and really make the PS5 Pro 'look' like its running games at much higher Graphical fidelity than the hardware itself should be able to. If it 'looks' as good as Native and 'looks' like its delivering 60frames whilst only running at 1080/30 (and 720p on Series X/PS5 with 'FSR' upscaling) - its a 'winner'.

@RicksReflection Like I said, if its NOT actually running at 60fps but relying on PSSR to 'artificially' create the illusion of 60fps through Frame Generation (or 120fps) then its nothing more than a 'visual' thing - like turning on Motion Blur to create a 'smoother' looking game.

4k (or 8k) isn't '4k' if its using ANY form of Upscaling. Sony already mislead with Killzone Shadowful, claiming it was running at higher resolution than it was.

What I don't want to see is games that are running at '1080/30' on PS5 as being '4k/60' games just because PSSR, like DLSS can make the game 'look' like its running at 4k/60. If the game is 'updating' at 30 times a second, then its a 30fps game regardless.

DLSS may leave its 'competitors' behind, but whilst it may get 'closest' to the look of 'Native 4k' (with the same Graphics settings), its still an upscaled lower res game. Frame Generation may also create the look of 60,, but plays 'worse' than Native 30fps due to the game only updating at 30fps so has '30fps' input lag + extra input lag due to the frame generation.

DLSS 'looks' great compared to Native res or native frame rates, but the game itself isn't producing that image or updating 'faster'. In theory, you can add this to ANY game make a PS4 1080/30 game running at 1080/30 on a PS5 Pro via BC look like its now running at 4k/60 but may actually feel less responsive than playing on PS4 with Native 30fps because the AI adds some more 'Lag' as it artificially creates frames to drop in...

At 60fps, the 'extra' Lag is lower due to 60 updates per second, 16.6ms between frames instead of 33.3ms so less impactful but its not great for '30fps' modes...

@RicksReflection My biggest concern is Frame Generation - using AI/ML to 'artificially' insert extra frames to create the 'look' of a game running at 60fps but in reality, its still a 30fps game, updating 30x per second with the 'FEEL' of a 30fps game as a result.

Both FSR 3 and DLSS 3 are able to generate extra frames by 'waiting' until the next frame is generated and therefore have the information to generate a frame to drop in inbetween. At below 60fps though, this really isn't great as it significantly adds more input lag and feels even less responsive than regular 30fps just to 'smooth' out the motion.

I also have issue with Devs/Publishers claiming their game is '4k' on a Console when in reality its running at much lower resolution and using 'upscaling' methods to output a 3840x2160 image. To me, that's like some 'SD' or even 'HD' TV channel claiming they are now delivering 4k because the image is upscaled to 4k by your TV. OK so they may use better Upscaling techniques - inc Chequerboard Rendering, Temporal Upscaling, some Algorithm or AI to take a '1080p' image and make it 'look' more like a 'native' 4K image than other upscaling methods - such as your own TV's upscaling algorithm or FSR/DLSS/XESS/PSSR.

Sony haven't claimed a 'Massive' Frame Rate boost at all - they haven't officially announced it yet. Its people that are expecting or 'wanting' a minimum 60fps (even on PS5) that 'hope' this will somehow do what even the latest and significantly better CPU's can't offer on PC, PC's with 32GB System RAM and at least 8GB built into their GPU's.

Yes it may have Sony's 'equivalent' to DLSS built in, like nVidia's GPU's but as I said, these 'GPU's' can't deliver a 'locked' 60fps experience with the 'best' intel CPU's on the market. Frame Gen may make some 50+ FPS games 'look' like they are running at 100fps+, even take games running at 1080p, with RT and make them 'look' like they are native 4k - but the game is still only a 1080/50 game made to look like its running at 4k/100 with DLSS 3.0.

Essentially, frame generation is more a 'motion blur' type option - create the illusion of higher frame rates, create the illusion of 'smoother motion'. AI upscaling is also creating the illusion that the Hardware is actually running games at 'higher' resolution.

Again, its up to the individual to decide if that 'illusion' is worth the extra cost to them. For some, it may well be a little bit more than a Base PS5 to decide if its worth spending a bit more on it, but for others who already have a PS5, its another big outlay.

Most 3rd Party games aren't really worth buying at launch today - unoptimised, missing content/features, filled with bugs/glitches etc that take months to get patched.

I bought a PS4 Pro and XB1X at 'launch' but at the time, these were as expensive as a 'base' PS5 is today but I don't know that I'll buy into PS5 Pro because like the PS4 Pro before it, its not a 'balanced' upgrade - heavily weighted on the GPU side when the CPU has often been the Bottleneck to 60fps gaming...

From a DevsPublishers perspective, that's additional weeks if not months of optimisation work for an additional Model but NO/limited additional Sales. Most people that would buy their game would still buy regardless. The PS5 Pro isn't likely to 'boost' sales of the Game enough to justify the 'extra' costs in optimising for another hardware spec.

@RicksReflection Its your money and up to you to decide if you think the predominantly 'Visual' upgrade the PS5 Pro is likely to offer as 'worth' the cost to you.

At the moment, some 'Performance' modes are as low as 720p on Base PS5 with 'FSR' being used to upscale. The PS5 Pro maybe able to bump the 'Base' resolution up to say 1080p and then use PSSR to upscale for a 'better' looking result, less artefacts due to a 'better' upscaler (more akin to DLSS) and a better starting resolution.

Its like the PS4 Pro before it too in that its CPU is the same, just given a 'slighter' boost this time but as we saw with PS4 to PS4 Pro or XB1S to XB1X, the boosts to CPU didn't translate to a 'massive' (as in 30 to 60fps or 2x) jumps in frame rates.

So whilst the 'image' may look more like a '4k' image should look like if the Hardware was actually able to run the game at 4k due to 'better' upscaling and/or maybe a higher starting resolution too, its not suddenly going to make a '30fps' game run at 60fps if its CPU limited - as MANY games are.

For some, the 'cost' for a better image will be worth it - the PS4 Pro and XB1X both sold so there is some market for them. But despite those being on the Market, they were still outsold by their 'Base' hardware that was much cheaper. In other words, the base hardware was more popular than mid-gen upgrades.

Paying $500+ for games that 'look' better but still have the same issues, same game-play, same stories, same experiences etc, especially if you already have a PS5 to play/experience those games on. The Games themselves are reliant too on the devs actually making and releasing optimised, fully working games at launch - yet most are buggy messes.

@RicksReflection What I said is that IF games are CPU limited on PS5, limiting them to 30fps, then there is NO way they can drop the resolution LOW enough and rely on PSSR to make the game look 4k and run at 60fps.

Games like BG3 (drops below 30fps) won't suddenly be able to hit 60fps because the reason its NOT 60fps on PS5 is the CPU - not the 'graphics'. PSSR at most can make it 'look' like its running at 60fps by artificial frame generation - but the game will still be running at 30fps, still have the same 'feel' and input lag of a 30fps game, because the game is only updating at 30fps...

Sony doesn't have some magic pixie dust they can sprinkle on their Hardware and make it perform miracles. IF you actually read what I wrote, then you wouldn't be so 'Dumbfounded'. Its simple to understand that PSSR is basically the same as nVidia's DLSS. On PC, DLSS may allow PC users to drop the game visuals to save resources and get 'higher' frame rates, but instead of being 'limited' by GPU on what Frame rate they can achieve, they are limited by GPU. DLSS won't help hit 60fps if the CPU is the limiting factor...

If you actually 'read' what I said, I said there are '60fps' Performance modes on PS5 but they have to turn the res down to 720p, turn down some visual quality settings and rely on FSR to upscale to 4k. PS5 Pro could increase that starting res to 1080p and use PSSR to make it look significantly 'better' than the PS5 but BOTH still are offering 60fps regardless. What I said is that if the game is 'limited' to 30fps on PS5, that doesn't mean the PS5 Pro can offer 60fps because the CPU will be the limiting factor...

@RicksReflection I'll keep it simple for you then.

PSSR may well create the 'illusion', the 'look' of extra frames (like DLSS 3.0 or FSR 3.0) by 'generating' fake frames to drop in between each frame the game Generates. That may well give the 'look' of a 60fps game, that extra smooth presentation, but isn't going to make the game 'run' and therefore 'update' at 60fps.

I am not being 'negative' as you put it, I'm being realistic and tempering my expectations accordingly. The PS5 Pro, like the PS4 Pro before it, looks to 'enhance' the Visuals. If the PS5 can't do 60fps because of CPU bottlenecks and having to drop to 720p with FSR2.0 to 'upscale' to 4k in performance modes, then this is more likely to offer 1080p with PSSR (instead of FSR and much more like nVidia's own AI/Machine Learning DLSS ) to give a much cleaner, sharper and 'better' looking upscaled 4k image than PS5 can - maybe even better lock to 60fps (or 30fps in some games)

@RicksReflection That's not how it works - the GPU (or Graphics Processing Unit) is obviously going to see a 'reduction' in its workload as its only rendering and processing a much smaller image.

However that image still has the same number of objects, NPC's, Textures etc etc. Its still having to decompress exactly the same amount of 'data' being transferred from SSD so whilst you may 'reduce' the cost of Rendering out a frame, you may not save 'enough' resources to increase the Frame Rate.

As I said, if you have 100 AI enemies all with 'physics' and shooting at you, every bullet has to be tracked and isn't going to be affected by resolution differences - 100 enemies will still have the same Physics/AI resources regardless of whether its 1080p or 4k. The amount of objects, textures etc that the CPU has to call in and decompress for use by the GPU isn't changing either.

There are much better CPU's in the PC space that can't hit '60fps' in some games with a RTX4090 and resolution/settings dropped to 540p (no GPU Bottleneck) because the CPU cannot do 'everything' its being asked to do in 16.6ms (or less) to hit that Frame Rate. A 10% boost to a CPU limited '50fps' isn't going to make it hit 60fps.

If the GPU takes 18ms to render at 4k, and only 6ms at 1080p for example, that maybe 'enough' to reduce the overall frame time to be 'below' 16.6ms - but if the CPU needs 14ms (therefore 32ms at 4k - under the 33.3ms required for a 'stable' 30fps), dropping to 1080p isn't going to save 'enough' resources to hit the 16.6ms frame time required for 60fps.

Look at Rise of the Tomb Raider - a CPU limited game that despite dropping the resolution down by 1/4, that still didn't enable a 2x Frame Rate increase on Series X despite the massive (much greater than 10%) boost to CPU, RAM and GPU resources the XB1X had. The PS4 Pro had a bigger CPU boost (30%) and couldn't 'double' frame rates.

It may enable a 'few' games to offer 60fps 'Performance' modes if they weren't CPU intensive but I expect it will be more a 'Graphical' boost. Some are already running at 720p with FSR2.0 in 'Performance' modes and this may enable them to 'boost' resolution to 1080p and then use PSSR to upscale to 4k for a much higher quality looking image but games like Jedi Survivor, Gotham Knights, BG3 etc cannot hit 60fps with much higher PC CPU's in some areas so a 10% boost isn't going to make much difference...

@RicksReflection What you are missing is that a LOT of things don't actually scale with 'resolution' or changes to Graphical Settings. Physics, NPC AI etc. If you have 100 enemies on screen, each with their AI and Physics, that doesn't 'scale' with Resolution.

There are a number of games that are CPU limited on PS5 already so a 10% boost to CPU isn't suddenly going to free up enough CPU resources to make much difference. If it can't hold a 'locked' 30fps due to CPU, then a 10% boost isn't suddenly going to allow them to hit 60fps.

Granted, if you are targeting a Native 4k, dropping to 1080p may allow for 60fps if the GPU is the limiting factor. If the PS5 is well balanced between CPU/GPU, then the PS5 Pro is heavily weighted on the GPU side.

Many games can't hit 60fps on PS5 because they are hitting the ceiling of the CPU, not GPU...

Sony have done exactly the same as they did with the PS4 Pro - bumped up the GPU side out of 'balance' with the rest to essentially offer the PS5 games with the SAME performance (or thereabouts) with higher 'base' resolution and superior upscaling - better than traditional, temporal or FSR methods.

The CPU is basically the same - albeit with the ability to go faster - a fraction faster than Series X now so if a game can't hit '30fps' due to CPU bottlenecks (BG3) then this isn't suddenly going to let you play at 60fps. The image may look better than PS5, thanks to maybe a higher 'base' Resolution to upscale from and a much better upscaling solution.

I'll be interested to see how much they are charging, but I think I'd stick with the base PS5 for the 'few' exclusives that I can't play elsewhere, my PC for example which has DLSS, a better CPU and much more RAM (32GB).

Again - whilst it may well be the 'best' upscaler, even better than the industry leading DLSS, its still an 'upscaler'.

So that may mean that they target 1080/60 on PS5 Pro (where the PS5 may be only 720p) with this being used to upscale that to a '4k' image. FSR2.0 as we know is better than 'traditional' upscaling, but not as good as DLSS. So in terms of an upgrade, the PS5 Pro would look much cleaner.

However, I also think this will be 'misleading' as you'll get these devs saying their game is running at 4k on PS5 when in reality its running at 1080p and being 'upscaled' to 4k.

Don't get me wrong, I think its a 'better' use of resources as it costs much less to upscale 1080p to 4k than to render Native 4k. But that doesn't mean the game is actually running at 4k - its outputting a 4k image with 'superior' upscaling than your TV would do, better upscaling than FSR or TAA offers...

During the PS4/PS4 Pro, the XB1S/X and now with the XSS/X consoles, whilst people had a 'choice' to buy either a 'base/entry' tier version or a 'Premium' tier offering 'EXACTLY' the SAME Library of games, albeit with higher 'resolution' or Performance, the highest selling option was the Base/cheaper hardware.

Even though the Series X is by far the 'weakest' Console on the market for current gen games, its still outselling the more expensive XSX. It was the same for XB1S that was outselling the 'most powerful' console hardware from last gen the XB1X.

What this tells us is that the 'majority' aren't that bothered about high res or higher frame rates - not enough to justify the extra cost. However, it also proved that there was a 'market' for these at under £500 and maybe did cater to a smaller subset of Console gamers so maybe this will be good for Sony.

I only question whether it will do enough or be too costly to justify. It seems this ONLY offers a 'Graphical' boost aided by this to make it all look 'more' 4k - not necessary do that at a 'locked' 60fps if the game is still only 30fps on PS5! A small 'boost' in CPU but these 720p PS5 games looking 'awful' with FSR, now will run similarly to PS5 (like PS4 Pro) but now 1080p with more headroom to hit 30fps using THIS PSSR block to do a better job of making it 'look' 4k than FSR or other upscaling methods would without this.

Its 'borrowing' heavily from DLSS which can make 1080p 'look' like 4k with little/no upscaling artefacts - like ghosting from temporal upscaling or tell-tale signs of Chequerboard rendering for example - a cleaner, more '4k' image from games running internally at 'lower' Res...

@Flaming_Kaiser I'm not denying it. Whether they used Chequerboard Rendering or some other Temporal upscaling method, it still created the 'look' of a game running at higher 'native' resolution than it actually was.

As I said, things like DLSS are making '1080p' HD images look as good as if the game was actually running at 2160p without the 'typical' artefacts associated with upscaling a 1080p image to fit a 4k window but its still rendering a 1080p image and 'upscaling' it.

I'm not against using things like DLSS or PSSR, but I dislike the dishonesty. Just because your console maybe sends a '3840x2160' image to your display, that doesn't mean the Game itself is running at or rendering a 4k image. Killzone was claimed to be a 1080p game but actually wasn't (in MP). H:ZD isn't running at '4k' either.

Some games are 'outputting' a 3840x2160p image, say they are '4k' but really running at HD and relying on upscaling methods. It would be like your TV taking 'SD' or 'HD' channels and using some AI upscaling to improve the 'look' of those channels compared to their regular upscaling algorithm - and then claiming that channel is now a '4k' channel when the 'Source' is NOT!

Again, I have nothing against them improving Upscaling methods but I do object to them using those to 'mislead' what the SOURCE is. Next they'll be claiming a game is 60fps, yet its only 30fps at source and relying on AI Frame Generation. The game is not updating at 60fps so cannot be a '60fps' game. Its not a '4k' game if the Game itself can't render at 4k. If its 'capped' at 1800p, its an 1800p game regardless of what 'upscaling' method they utilise.

@NeonPizza @itsfoz And don't forget the 'compulsory' extra costs involved in console gaming - for a start, you really need a monthly Subscription to PS+/Game Pass, even if just the most basic Sub service adding to overall cost.

Say they do release at £700 and add another £7 a month for the next 3yrs for PS+ essential (I know you maybe able to find it cheaper or buy it annually for £60) but that adds to 'cost' as well as paying £70 for games that are 'cheaper' on PC too.

So whilst a Console maybe 'cheaper' initially on Hardware, the extras add up - but it is a choice. I prefer a 'Console' to game on for ease and it suits how I game better. However, I also dislike being locked into just 1 'ecosystem', forced to buy from just one 'digital' store and forced to Subscribe to a service to access 'content' I bought...

@Flaming_Kaiser Whilst nothing 'official' has been released, that doesn't stop the 'principal'. The whole point is this is Sony's answer to 'upscaling'.

It may well use AI for example to enhance the quality of the 'upscaled' image, remove or eliminate some of the 'artefacts' or issues associated with other upscaling methods but its still taking a 'lower' resolution image and making it look like it was actually rendered at a higher resolution.

DLSS, for example, regarded as the 'best' on the market right now, can take a 1440p, even a 1080p image and make it 'look' like a 4k image. It looks more like a 'native' 4k image, better than 'traditional' upscaling but neither is actually running the game at 'higher' resolution.

A game running at 1080/60 on a 4k screen would look a bit soft due to the TV's own upscaling. DLSS, FSR etc all take that 'SAME' 1080p image and make it look 'closer' to a Native 4k image but its still '1080p' internal res.

More power may help those 720p internal res games have a 'higher' starting point (say 1440p) and with 'better' upscaling options, make that 1440p look even more like Native 4k to deliver 60fps but doesn't mean that its running at 4k.

A game running internally at 30fps, being updated 30x a second, isn't suddenly going to feel like 60fps or like its being updated 60x a second because of some artificially rendered frame is dropped in between to create the 'illusion', the 'smoothness' of a 60fps game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for utilising resources more efficiently and if they can make 1080p look more like 'Native' 4k with 'fewer/no' artefacts, then of course its better than relying on my TV to 'upscale' to 4k but doesn't change the fact the game itself is only rendering a 1080p image - it just 'looks' better with DLSS than standard upscaling algorithms...

So they are focussing on reconstruction - maybe it will be more on a par with DLSS than FSR, but the whole point of 'reconstruction' techniques is to artificially create the 'look' of higher resolution whilst the game is running at 'lower' resolution.

As we know, some games are running as low as 720p to hit 60fps - often using some 'reconstruction' techniques (like FSR, Chequerboard rendering etc) to 'create' a higher resolution image to output. However, the 'output' resolution may well be 2160p but its been reconstructed and upscaled from a much lower resolution.

Granted, having more 'horesepower' under the hood may well mean that you aren't having to 'start' with a 720p image the game is 'actually' presenting - you could start from 1080 or 1440p instead so 'less' reconstruction/upscaling for a 'cleaner' image.

As for Frame Generation (as FSR/DLSS 3.0 offer), a 30fps is still a 30fps - the same input lag, the same response etc as the game is still only updating at 30fps - an 'artificially' created image is being placed between these to create the 'look' of 60fps, not address the 'FEEL' of 60fps.

I don't mind them not wasting resources to push 'Native' 4k when those resources maybe better used to push draw distance, lighting quality etc and then 'upscaled' from 1440p+ but its still not a '4k' game - it just 'looks' 4k because of the quality of the upscale.

It may well be telling you its 4k/60 but in reality could be running at 1080/60. Like I said, we have games saying they are '4k' yet running at 'HD' resolutions and using some form of upscaling technology to take a low res image and make it look much higher res...

And if a PS5 is still over £400 in 'sales', how much do you think this will cost? £700? £1000?

On the subject of 'development' - I guess if you have just a Single platform to develop for, regardless of how well 'specced' it is, you can build games to that limited spec and save money on porting, optimising and supporting other hardware.

The Switch for example has 1080/60 games that run 'flawlessly' on that hardware but we are seeing some games on PS5 struggling to offer 1080/60 on PS5. Of course Polygon counts, the density of detail/objects etc etc maybe significantly higher, but they weren't 'built' specifically for PS5, specifically for PS5's 'limited' hardware. Its much easier to 'tweak' a game, reduce or even remove things that go 'over' budget. Its a bit more tricky when some hardware will offer the 'full' vision ad your 'scaling' it down to fit on a Console. Point is, you have a 'fixed' spec, a limited 'budget' and limit the game/ambition etc to that budget to ensure it 'runs' as intended. 3rd Party build their 'vision' and then try and fit it to the limited spec.

At the end of the day, an Exclusive is ONLY there to get you to buy that Hardware - which then gets you 'locked' into that platform. You'll end up buying Subscriptions (even if the Basic tier PS+ just to play online), games, DLC/MTX, peripherals etc - how much does Sony make from 3rd Party Software on 'their' system. Its not done for 'the gamer', its done to ensure you buy a Playstation, an Xbox and/or a Switch.

MS may well be selling Games like Sea of Thieves on PS5, but they'll make money from that - maybe not as 'much' as they make on Xbox as Sony will take their '30%' cut. If Helldivers 2 came to Xbox, Sony could make a LOT more money but MS too would get 'some' money.

All an Exclusive is really a tool for the Platform holder to get you into their Ecosystem. Once its served its purpose, Sony are now selling them on PC knowing that anyone who really wanted to play, would have bought hardware to play it, now selling to the 'PC' community who probably won't buy a PS5.

To me, it seems the big Publishers have put their faith in a Live Service future - a shell of a game they hope to sell, then continue selling cosmetics, in-game currencies and other exceptionally over-priced content indefinitely.

However, the gamers themselves have made it known that this is not acceptable - many Live Service games have failed/died - especially those with $70 launch prices competing with F2P games.

When Sony announced they had 10+ Live Service games, most of the 'internet' were extremely disappointed and/or critical. Couple that with other Publishers trying and failing too - games like Gotham Knights, Suicide Squad, Skull N Bones - and several that are now gone forever.

To me, it was inevitable that something had to give - Publishers pushing for Live Service games they hope to make 'billions' on selling Cosmetics costing as much as many Indie and/or Sale complete Games with minimal effort (change colours and charge for a 'new' outfit).

It seemed that Devs were unhappy making some 'generic' Live Service game wrapped in an IP they own Skin with exceptionally bland and/or generic story, missions etc with the Sole purpose of selling 'DLC' extras indefinitely - let alone pushing them out 'unfinished/unpolished' too - and the gaming market have said 'enough' with their wallets and comments on the internet.

Would Sony of been in this position if they had announced 10+ Single Player games - even if they had a Multi-player component? I bet if they announced a Killzone 'reboot' with a Single Player Campaign and full MP suite as you'd expect from Killzone, few would complain but taking just the MP suite from Last of Us, making a Horizon Live Service etc isn't what Sony customers want or expect - which has probably led to this situation.

It's not just Sony of course - but with many F2P games, as well as a massive library (inc Backwards Compatible titles - many now 'cheap' and Sub services offering 'free' games, 'new' releases are struggling to justify their 'increased' price - especially as most are not really bringing anything 'new' - the same game-play loops, same generic mechanics etc - just higher polygon count/visual density. Gamers have been burned too many times, buying Day 1 and being disappointed the game is a buggy, broken mess, erratic performance etc that needs patching - not expected from a $70 game.

Therefore, I think it was inevitable that something had to give. Publishers can't keep trying to force games people don't really want to play, can't expect to charge $70 for 'mediocre/minimal' content with promises to drip feed content along with Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc and release games in 'poor' state too...

From my perspective, Streaming is NOT really the Primary way gamers will choose to play their games - its a 'bonus' option for certain situations where using 'hardware' to play isn't an 'option'.

If you are playing on PS5 or Series X for example - Why? The only reason is likely to be to 'try' a game to see if its worth waiting to download and install. Otherwise, its just a way to play games 'away' from your Primary hardware choice.

Additional lag is a bit like lower resolution/PQ on a handheld - you should 'expect' it for that flexibility as input signals have to travel far further from you to 'hardware' running the game and send a picture to your display.

Considering that both ABK and Zenimax group of studios have 'current' games across ALL platforms, the likes of Minecraft, CoD, OW2, Diablo, ESO, Fallout76, Doom, Wolfenstein etc etc, many of which have received extra content, updates etc, there is a 'LOT' of MS owned IP's on Playstation and Switch already.

That doesn't mean that they'll bring EVERYTHING to PS or Switch - maybe they'll treat PS/Switch in a similar way to Sony treats the PC - release 'some' games a year or more later. Still 'exclusive' on Xbox at release - or maybe the 'incentive' for MS could be Game Pass vs having to spend $70+ to play Day 1...

The fact is, MS will release games on PS/Switch - maybe not their 'entire' catalogue but a selection - Minecraft & CoD certainly aren't going anywhere...

Who cares? If AI can do the job as well, if not better than so overpaid 'media' star who is only reading scripts/lines that someone else 'wrote' .

Video games have somehow now ended up being affected by these 'precious media darlings' who won't read a few lines of dialogue for less than several thousand. Somehow having some famous 'media' star is now a marketing gimmick too - Keanu Reeves (Cyberpunk) being the most obvious.

If you can't tell the difference between 'AI' and real humans - either because AI is that good or because so many parts are 'AI' in a game - Cortana being perhaps one of the more famous 'AI' in Game, Ghost from Destiny (voiced by Peter Dinklage and then Nolan North).

The ONLY issue I have is if they ASK AI to sound exactly like a Famous Actor/person without their permission specifically and/or use their 'likeness' in game too

None of them really stand out to me as 'must haves/day 1' purchases at best and many there that really don't appeal to my tastes or what I personally would want to spend my time/money on.

I still have games I am enjoying and not yet finished and plenty of other games in my backlog to keep me in games until such a time as something 'new' appeals more than anything I can already play and so much so, I'll buy it when/near release...

I think if anyone was currently in the Market looking to Bolster their own portfolio of Studio's, they could have had a host of Studio's and/or built up their 'existing' Studios from all those that have been closed down and/or had big Staff cuts.

Sony, for example, maybe could have bought First Contact Entertainment (Firewall Zero Hour) to bolster their VR game development or maybe recruited staff from the 'numerous' Closures to create a 'new' or 2nd Studio to any of their big Studio's.

Arguably you wouldn't get the same 'talent' or the IP's that CDPR have, but also the Studio is in a much stronger place today than a few years ago. Despite the 'Launch' and subsequent months of disappointment - especially for gamers on 'last-gen' hardware, the game sold well and as more people 'upgraded' to next gen consoles, Cyberpunk has become one of the 'best' RPG's on the current hardware. Therefore, I'd imagine that they as a Company would be in a position of 'Strength' to determine their own future.

Independent Studios are not going to sell when they have all the resources they need for their immediate future. Its when things are difficult, maybe their games aren't selling 'enough' to keep them making games with rising costs etc and looking for 'investment', that they are often bought by Corporations. New or independent Studio's making their 'first' big Game wanting the resources to compete in the AAA space etc.

@KendoHead the game being installed on a console is nothing to do with ownership...

You are right here because even if you do somehow manage to install Software on your console, you cannot access it with a Valid Licence - either from putting the Disc in OR because the License is attached to your Account if bought digitally. So installed 'software' is not 'ownership' as you could install the Last of Us 2 from disc, sell the disc and therefore that 'software' becomes useless without the Licence key to access it - which you no longer own. Its the same with Digital - the download part is just to ensure you have the software that your purchased licence key will allow you to play...

The only difference is that licence is held on Disc/Cartridge with Physical and with Digital, its linked to your Account so you need to sign in to Access the Software or put the Disc in. Without the Licence, you can't play and that Software is 'owned' by the Devs/publishers - not you!

The point I was making about 'Goldeneye' for example is that you need to own the Cartridge and the Hardware simultaneously and just 'owning' the Cartridge doesn't grant you the right to play on newer hardware. If you bought Killzone 3 on disc, it doesn't matter if you now own a PS4/5, you can't 'play' it or expect to be able to jump online anymore. If you bought it digitally and they turn the 'online' service off on PS3 you can't 're-download' so its lost. Without a working PS3, owning the Disc isn't going to let you play...

You NEVER own the Software - that is 'owned' by the developer/publisher. You've never 'owned' the Software. Just because you 'could' abuse terms, maybe even 'copy' games from others 'illegally' and play without any real 'risk' in the past doesn't change the fact you didn't 'own' the Game. You bought a licence to access the devs/publisher owned software included with it...

@Martijn87 Without a 'License' in place, it would be illegal for the Publisher to sell and profit from another's Intellectual Property. They do NOT own the rights to Bill & Ted, so once the Licence expires, they can no longer sell the game.

It's no different from Spider-Man (Treyarch) or Wolverine (Raven Software) games by Activision are no longer for sale, cannot be 'sold' because ABK cannot 'profit' from using Marvel characters without a 'License' in place.

@KendoHead at least a Physical purchase allows me to own something that can't be taken away at any given time.

You buy a Physical version, they can still 'revoke' your Licence to play or at least stop you from 'playing' if they decide or you break the terms & conditions of said licence.

You NEVER own a 'Game'! What you 'purchase' - whether Digitally or Physically, is a 'Licence' to access that Software. The software is 'included' on disc/via download so you can play but without a Licence, the Software is useless to you. Try playing a game you installed to your Console without the Disc, you can't! That's despite the entire game being 'installed' - you need the Disc to prove you still own a valid Licence to access the Software...

Many games are no-longer 'playable' or major portions of the Game are no longer available due to them deciding to turn off Servers for example. If you own 'Goldeneye' on Cartridge, you have a 'valid' licence to keep playing on N64 hardware - but can't use that 'Licence' to play on Xbox or Switch today. Therefore, you are still dependent on using Obsolete Hardware (no longer in Production) to play games no longer being made or for sale - unless you can find a 'used' working copy somewhere...

Big difference, in my opinion, to a bolted-on MP mode designed to add more 'value' and/or long term Player engagement beyond the Single Player, and a Multi-player ONLY game.

LoU & Uncharted both followed the 'trend' of bolting on a MP mode onto a Single Player game - just like Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2, AC2 Brotherhood and numerous 'other' games. Even CoD or Halo were known primarily for their Campaign with a 'good' MP suite. Point is, you bought these for the Campaigns, then stayed because you enjoyed the MP.

Now, it seems that MP is the 'focus' because that's where they can make the 'most' money with Season/Battle passes, MTX, Loot boxes etc etc. I played a bit ND's Uncharted's MP's but would NEVER buy the MP separately and certainly wouldn't have bought 'Factions'. Even if it was F2P, I'd still not bother with these.

How many people complain about Halo or Gears Campaign not living up to expectations - certainly since Bungie/Epic stopped making those. Even this years CoD is considered a 'dud' because its Campaign is 'very weak'. So many 'Live Service' games are struggling and even MP games aren't really 'succeeding' in pulling players away from 'established' online games.

@nessisonett Maybe because 3 was flawed and not built for modern hardware so more work and New Vegas, arguably the best 'Fallout' game wasn't made by Bethesda.... LOL

And besides those games aren't on 'PS4' natively to get a PS5 update that is possibly 'free' if you own the game...

@NinjaNicky Part of it is the 'grind' to unlock new weapons, camo's, attachments, calling cards etc as well as complete all those 'new' challenges.

If you have got every camo, attachment etc in the game, then the 'new' one gives them all that to play for. Even if the Maps aren't 'new' the new Movement does change up the Maps a bit more too and you have the Nostalgia too of playing some Iconic maps.

It may not change 'much' but part of the game-play loop is the 'rewards' of unlocking new stuff as you play. If you have unlocked everything, reached maximum level etc, then you want something 'new' even if that isn't as 'great' value as its 'predecessor' seems to others.

I doubt it will go down in CoD history as one of the 'best', but it is giving CoD gamers that game-play and rewarding experience. Almost every match you play, you'll be unlocking 'something' new and that drives players to 'play one more' because they are close to unlocking something, levelling up etc that 'older' games no longer offer having already unlocked 'everything' in those...

To me, its perhaps more than Fifa or MLB changes - which at time you think they could just 'update' the stats for the 'new' season as the 'Game-play' doesn't really change - but people still buy those too.

Despite the Competition (BF2042, Apex, Fortnite, Valorant, Destiny, Halo, Doom, Quake, Borderlands etc etc) there isn't really a game that feels like, plays and does what CoD does. If you prefer Battlefield for example, CoD may feel too fast or too twitchy, some don't like Cartoony aesthetics or Sci-fi settings either so if CoD is 'bad', its still really the only game on the market that ticks their boxes.

After CoD4, people complained WW2 was a step back, then MW2 was too arcade-like with bright pop-ups and 100pts for kills. By Ghosts, everyone was 'fed' up with Boots on the ground and not 'evolving', Titanfall was going to Kill CoD. They hated Advanced Warfare and WW2 was the 'end' for CoD. Vanguard was a disaster - and people thought BF2042 would overtake it - until DICE messed that up even more. Every year, since CoD4, there has been a 'vocal' internet section that constantly feels the need to be negative about the 'new' CoD, yet it still succeeds. And its not the same 'players' as 20yrs ago either...

So Long and thanks for all the Fish....

Watched a few games and its definitely not for me. The destruction is 'novel' but gets stale with a repetitive game-loop. Maybe it's not for me, that's OK, but I could only play a few matches with 'friends' which always makes 'team' games better before I'd get bored and want to something different. I couldn't play 'team deathmatch' over and over again without mixing it up with some Domination, King of the Hill or some other modes.

@Flaming_Kaiser To be honest, I'd rather wait for games to drop in price to a point I'm willing to jump in for. CoD may not be your thing and therefore most games may 'appeal' more to you anyway.

All I was saying is that if I broke it down into cost per hour, I can easily get more 'value' from just Zombies than I would from BG3 because BG3, even though I accept its a Game of the Year for a Reason, it has NO appeal at all and cannot stand Turn based Combat. So from that perspective 'CoD' is a better buy for 'me'.

For hardcore fans of Call of Duty - it is after all very popular (like Fifa that barely changes year on year), it may not be as 'great' as previous years, but it is still the ONLY game that really does what CoD does. It also will give them the type of Game-play they enjoy and all new weapons, camos, attachments etc to unlock. Games like Apex, Fortnite, PUBG, BF2042, The Finals, DefiantX etc etc are not the same so those 'CoD' enthusiasts really have little choice but to buy MW3 to keep playing CoD, and having already unlocked 'everything' in MW2, more 'new' stuff to grind for.

Its not as if there is a real competitor in that sense - as the 'others' all have their 'own' thing. Some don't like Sci-fi settings or maybe don't like more cartoony style aesthetics for example so there are Alternatives, but not a 'direct' competitor since Medal of Honour disappeared...

I also believe that the decision to release as a Full price release instead of 'DLC' for MW2 as was its original plan was, is most likely a directive from Kotick (or ABK board). They were 'expecting' to be out by June but with the FTC/CMA potentially 'blocking' the deal (if they couldn't resolve things by Oct), ABK had to pivot back to Annual $70 release for their Shareholders in case MS isn't able to purchase those Shares and if it backfires, maybe it will be an MS issue to solve...

@__jamiie I couldn't agree more - and that goes for ALL 3rd Party Publishers IP's in my opinion. I can just about get behind a 3rd Party Studio making a game 'exclusive' for a Platform if that game is basically funded and/or published by the Platform holder. Spider-Man was 'funded' and 'Published' by Sony and Avalanches 'Contraband' is funded and Published by Microsoft.

But games like Final Fantasy or 'Tomb Raider' - both Square Enix IP's, Published by Square Enix should never of been exclusive - timed or otherwise. If Sony bought SE, I would NEVER expect to see FF on Xbox Consoles again despite it history being much older than Playstation. It becomes their IP - just Fallout, Minecraft, Call of Duty, Doom or World of Warcraft are Microsoft owned IP's.

I don't have an issue with a 3rd Party dev making a Marvel/Star Wars game exclusively for PSVR or makes use of the DS5 that won't 'work' on Xbox controllers, maybe exclusively for Xbox Cloud - but what I do object to is Multi-platform games having extras - like Spider-Man in Marvels Avengers or Extra content in Hogwarts.

Multi-platform should have Content Parity and should release on the 'same' day. However with many games getting 'assistance' from Platform holders - whether that's help of a financial, marketing, technical or even Publishing 'help' (ID@Xbox for example) then I can 'understand' why those Platforms may want 'something' in return - timed 'exclusivity' or 'extra' content as much as we 'hate' it as consumers.

@__jamiie I do agree that 3rd Party Licences - as in those NOT owned by a Platform manufacturer who also is a Game Developer/Publisher should never be 'exclusive' to a Single Platform.

However, that isn't 'Always' possible - Star Wars: Jedi Survivor perhaps wouldn't work/run well enough on Switch to force them to 'release' a version on that hardware for example. It maybe 'better' to develop games with the 'right' Studio (like Star Wars/Marvel games being made by different studios best 'suited' to that genre) or develop games for specific Hardware - like VR or Kinect (when that was a thing).

As for MS, I must admit that their business model is very different to Sony's - not necessarily better or worse, just different. Since they acquired Mojang and changed management (Mattrick left and Spencer took over in 2014), they have really changed. Mojang are a 'multi-platform' developer and continue to make/release 'Minecraft' games on everything - inc Dungeon/Legend spin-offs and Minecraft is the 'biggest' selling game ever. ABK 'group' of Studio's too look like they could remain 'multi-platform' too - certainly Call of Duty will be.

Maybe by the time Blade releases, Game Pass 'could' be on Playstation and PS+ on Xbox or maybe 'Xbox' hardware may not 'exist' - maybe Asus or other 'PC' manufacturers make a PC/console hybrid (like the RoG Ally is a PC/Handheld console Hybrid) and pull out of making their 'own' Hardware when all their games are on PC's anyway. Maybe it isn't worth all the R&D costs, prototyping etc when more and more move to the more open and much larger gaming libraries on PC.

You already see many PC gamers choosing 'not' to buy a Series S/X because it has 'no' games they can't play on Game Pass for PC - it makes more sense to own a PS5/Switch and a PC because PS5 and Switch have 'exclusives' they can't play day 1. Maybe they'll 'licence' Xbox so Asus can make an Xbox branded 'Console/PC Hybrid' instead of making their own 'Series X Elite' to rival PS5 Pro...

@Flaming_Kaiser Maybe not as many as you'd think - Sales were reportedly down a considerable margin compared to last years CoD and they have had to rely on 'engagement' metrics to spin some positive take.

If only the 'dedicated' fanbase buys it, chances are they will be more 'engaged' than many who perhaps decided not to buy. You haven't seen it really 'top' the charts like previous games have and I doubt it will be one of the 'best' selling CoD games.

As 'weak' as this years CoD is in terms of 'expected' content, its still one of the best games of its kind and a LOT play it for its MP more than its campaign. Those maps are Iconic to CoD veterans too. It perhaps offers more than an 'updated' list of teams/players that Fifa usually offer yet still sells every year and the 'CoD' community now eager for the 'new' - inc improvements to movement which does 'change' how those 'old' maps play - new weapons, levels, skins, etc etc etc to unlock, new challenges to complete etc having done everything in MW2.

I don't think ANY game is worth $70 myself - not GoW:R, not CoD, not Spider-Man 2, not GTA6, not Starfield - no game! Many games don't even release in a 'playable' state with consistent frame rates, missing 'content/features' that will come post-launch etc. But everyone is different with different preferences and I'd probably spend 'more' time playing Zombies in CoD than I would play God of War or GTA6 for example so in a cost per hour basis, it may well be 'better' value to me but at $70, not the 'best' value at all...