@Ken_Kaniff It would be strange if it wasn't like that. They spent 80 billion on two publishers and have 32+ internal studios. If they can't release first-party games at a pace of at least 4-5 per year, something is seriously rotten there. This year they have Towerborne, Call of Duty Gulf War, Avowed, Indiana Jones, ARA: History Untold, Hellblade 2 and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 which is pretty nice start.
I think writing is on the wall for PSVR2. 0 first-party PSVR2 games announced. Sales dropped from a cliff. And now even third-party devs are saying that there is no point in porting their games for platform.
@Lavishturtle Rocksteady never worked on Superman game. It was rumor originated from a guy who mixed up studios. Warner Bros. Montreal worked on Superman game (makers of Gotham Knights). But not Rocksteady.
I see that PlayStation community on the internet is dealing with same stuff as Xbox community when Sea of Thieves launched on PC - "Why we have to pay to access multiplayer in this game, but PC gamers don't need to?"
@EquiinoxGII People who are cheering for this development are in for a rude awakening. Without Xbox hardware, Sony can do basically whatever they want with prices on PlayStation. I'm sure people would be fine with PlayStation 6 for 700$, right?
@UltimateOtaku91 No it isn't
Unless it's also coming to mobile and Arcade machines
I'm not trying to say that Hi-Fi Rush is not coming to other platforms, but I'm just pointing out that this rating is just there to "cover their asses" and not because announcement is incoming. Also, rating is from december 2022 so other platforms are included for more then year. And PS5 is missing
I like haptics, but Adaptive Triggers is most annoying ***** ever and I disabled it on console settings. But it kinda screwed me because Adaptive Trigger mechanic is huge part of Returnal for example...
Yeah. I'm still not expecting any news about this game this year.
5 years in development is common in current AAA game industry (even more with new IP) and considering they only started development on that new IP in 2021, I'm expecting this game at the end of current gen. So there is no point in revealing that game this year.
@Impossibilium Okay. You clearly can't separate disgusting personality of Kotick from his ability to run successful business. So there is literally no point to talk to you about it.
@dv_xedge Well. We will see how leaks will be handled by those same sites in future. If it is more about "it's Insomniac" or more about "it's morally wrong."
But I digress. I'm interested in those information and there will be always someone who is willing to cover it, so I will read it there. It's not even that hard to access those files for yourself.
@Gunnerzaurus PushSquare covered Capcom leaks but is refusing to cover Insomniac leaks (so I expect this comment to be deleted). Gamespot editor also said that they will not cover Insomniac leaks why they covered Capcom leaks. And don't get me started on youtubers.
And while I understand difference between "Xbox leak" and Insomniac leak (Xbox basically doxxed themselves by uploading underacted files), there is no difference between Capcom and Insomniac leaks because they both originated from ransmoware hackers who published data.
And okay. Every web can choose where is their line in the sand. But don't use excuses when you covered information from same situation to try to get into moral highground.
@Gunnerzaurus But then don't argue with "we won't cover it because it's stolen information" when exactly same thing happened with Capcom and they covered it. Because it's just hypocrisy at that point.
It's really strange how differently are devs voicing their opinions about this leak.
Capcom had massive breach that revealed private info about employees and also revealed slate of their games for next 6 years and almost nobody cared and every website covered that leak.
But Insomniac suffered same breach and now everybody is concerned including some websites and people from gaming media?
I don't want to spread conspiracies but it really looks like they are afraid that Sony will take away their access to review codes/preview events etc. and that's why they won't cover it. And while I understand Insomniac devs being pissed at this situation, this really smells like double standard.
Jesus. Those royalties for Marvel are absolutely insane. It cost 315 million dollars for Sony to make Spider-Man 2 From every 70$ on Digital copies they need to send 6,3 - 12,6$ to Marvel. From every 70$ on Physical copies they need to send 13,3 - 18,2$ to Marvel. Not to mention cut for retailers, distribution companies etc. From every DLC they need to send 19-26% to Marvel From every hardware bundle they need to send 24,5 - 35$ to Marvel
Which means that if you bought PlayStation 5 Slim Spider-Man 2 bundle for 449$, not only Sony probably lost money on actual hardware unit sold, they also lost additional 24,5 - 35$ because of Marvel cut.
Which also means that if similar provision exist for Modern Warfare 3 PS5 bundles, with every PlayStation 5 Slim sold, Microsoft got huge chunk of money.
@themightyant Yeah. I tend to agree. I'm taking it as an official "excuse" and if it is true, that it's absolutely on Naugty Dog's management.
But my theory is just that they tried to do TLOU Online in "Naughty Dog way" and Bungie just told them that nobody will play it long term and live service without longevity is useless. So they have the option to adapt mechanics which would keep engagement or ditch the project entirely and they chose latter.
In my opinion, Naughty Dog strengths as developer are just incompatible with live service games. They care about carefully constructed narratives, animation and technical perfection, but they are not strong in gameplay mechanics and being able to churn new content fast enough. No live service players cares about lengthy cutscenes, obsessive animation quality and technical perfection. They care about engaging gameplay and new content
@thefourfoldroot1 It's bad management from Naughty Dog. How on earth are you developing a game for 4 years and only after all that time you realised how many devs would be needed to sustain this live service? Jesus. There are plenty of successful live service games like Apex, Fortnite etc. that should give you a clear picture what resources are needed for managing that type of game.
They now basically wasted 4 years of dev time on huge part of studio that could be used to make 2 AAA games during PS5 generation instead of one. Because there is just no way ND will be able to make more then one AAA game until end of generation.
I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic.
How many dev time was wasted on this project and how it is possible that studio like Naughty Dog had no clue how many people would be needed to sustain live service game?
@mrbone Fact that you have account in services doesn't make you MAU (Monthly active user). You should know that before you want to use phrases like liar.
Since you are arguing about bad numbers, isn't selling 20 million copies of a game that sold 120 million consoles also bad number?
I don't think Indiana Jones would sell more then PlayStation exclusives even if it was multiplatform (including PlayStation release). Mainly because I don't think Indiana Jones has brand recognition as Spider-Man (for example). Even if it will be excellent game.
I don't even need to "convince you" about anything. Numbers speak for itself. PC gaming market is similar size as market of all 3 console manufacturers combined.
Games are selling on PC, but PC has way more games and also different preferences. For example, Baldur's Gate 3 sold way more copies on PC because console gamers are not that hot on CRPG games while PC gamers are. Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 also sold best on PC. So trying to pretend that PC is small market is just pure lunacy. Riot literally never released game on consoles and they are one of the biggest gaming company on the market.
"Oh GP always count everyone who downloads and plays even 10 sec." Yes. And copy sold is copy sold even if person never played the game or played 10 minutes. And also when game is bundled with console (ehm. God of War Ragnarok, Spider-Man 2). But if you want to claim that 35 million Forza Horizon 5 players only played the game for 10 minutes and never turned it again then be my guest.
@mrbone I literally provided you hard number of MAU on two PC stores that vastly exceeds number of PlayStation users.
Rockstar is not releasing GTA VI on PC day one because they know they can double dip on people who are impatient and will buy GTA VI on PlayStation/Xbox and then on PC. Which is smart on their part.
Also. I never claimed that Indiana Jones will outsell PlayStation exclusives. I just said that it's not as big deal to skip PlayStation as some of the PlayStation users claim it is thanks to Xbox+PC combined audience.
And regarding "small size" of Xbox+PC audience. Forza Horizon 5 exceeded 35 million players. Not bad for "just" racing game
@Kevw2006 Mate. Steam alone has 126 million MAU which is more then PlayStation (107 million). Add EGS (estimates talk about 62 million MAU), GoG, Battle.net, Riot Launcher, Xbox Store on PC, EA Store, Ubisoft Connect etc. and you will maybe get a grip about how huge PC market actually is.
@Titntin Do you understand why exclusives are called exclusives right? Because they exclude a group of people.
MachineGames (and Arkane Lyon) are owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is funding development of Indiana Jones and Blade. They are first party games in same vein as Wolverine and Spider-Man. Also they didn't "bought" IP, they just licensed it.
Also. PC is not "Microsoft's platform." PC is open platform with competing stores and Microsoft sees no money from copy of other games sold through GoG/EGS/Steam. So arguing with that is pretty stupid.
And don't claim it's only about "removing games already being made for different competitor" because people bitch about Blade and that game started development in 2022 - when it was pretty clear that no PlayStation version is or ever will be developed.
As I said. This whole spiel is about PlayStation fans being angry, because they are used to have everything. So now they are trying to invent theories why it doesn't make financial sense for Indiana Jones and Blade to be exclusive for Disney. When in reality, those game are exclusive to bring people into Xbox ecosystem.
I want to play Indiana Jones/Fable/Gears 6 etc. so I bought Xbox. I recently purchased PlayStation 5 because there are plenty of games I don't want to miss. It's business so stop arguing with morality and ethics.
@Recover20 I agree. But my point was more about people bitching about Microsoft "being exclusionary" when it's Sony that is way more "exclusionary"
Which is not a bad thing of course. Every company has their own strategy and they are trying to make it work. But at least people should stop being hypocrite.
@Northern_munkey It's nowhere near exclusionary as Wolverine/Spider-Man 2. Because while yes, PlayStation 5 is selling way better then Series X/S, Sony is still ignoring PC market with day one releases. Microsoft is not. So looking at it only through optics of "Xbox is selling worse" is really disingenuous.
So let's say it through numbers Sony with Spider-Man/Wolverine is ignoring 300+ million PC users, 130 million Switch users, 25 million Series X/S users Microsoft with Indiana Jones is ignoring 50 million PlayStation users and 130 million Switch users. So who exactly is more exclusionary?
Indiana Jones and Blade are just about fact that PlayStation users aren't used to being overlooked with AAA releases and they are used to play everything from JRPG games to big named licensed IP's.
@get2sammyb Yeah. Bungie was always at it's best when they have knife to their necks.
Halo 2
Destiny The Taken King
Destiny 2 Forsaken
and now.
But there is no "winner" in this situation. Contrary to popular belief, Sony "taking over" Bungie will not be a win, because Sony don't have a clue how to run live service studio. That's why they bought them in the first place. And let's not pretend that Bungie are clueless since they are running one live service game for 10 years.
Sony spent 3,6 billion, so if Bungie is not successful, they effectively "blew" the money. They will save part of 1 billion retention bonuses though. And if they will take over Bungie, it could lead to many devs wanted to go out, since culture of Bungie is based on "***** all of them, we are Bungie" attitude. And it's not like they will have a problem getting a jobs since Seattle is pretty competitive place in terms of gaming studios.
Stuart was talking about games and services in relation to Activision Blizzard specifically. But in age when every non-story have to be turn to shocking story, this is where we ended up. People latched on 50% YoY sales drop of Xbox consoles in Europe, tied this to Stuart's statement taken out of context and suddenly Game Pass is coming to PlayStation and Microsoft is exiting console business.
@Fiendish-Beaver I mean yeah. Sure. They can revisit their approach. But they are not. Mainly because Stuart was talking about Microsoft's position in relation to ABK which many sites including this one conveniently ignore. But whatever.
I would argue that game that has OC Score of 85 can hardly be described as "having middling reviews" but whatever.
My point is that Starfield exactly prove that having exclusive first-party content is a way to go. Because Starfield brought highest uptick of new Game Pass subscribers since service was started and it directly led to more Series X/S sales. So info that Microsoft got from Starfield is "it works, we just need more of it." Which doesn't sound like "we are going third party."
It would be even stupider to go third-party since Microsoft currently doesn't know if having COD in Game Pass day one would not swing things more in their favour. On the other hand if they are undecided they still needs to work on next-gen system because it takes several years to research and make next-gen console. So they basically can't back off from next-gen.
I would still argue that having 30% from every transaction in you ecosystem with 50 million console sold brings more revenue then going third-party.
Goal for Microsoft now should be to finish ***** of first-party games they have in development and then release them and AFTER that decide what to do next. Which won't be sooner than 2027.
@Fiendish-Beaver I disagree. Back catalogue will bring you some players, not nowhere near enough to sustain a sub service. But okay. For sake of argument let's say, that Microsoft will exit a console race and start being third-party publisher with Game Pass on PlayStation and Switch. They will
loose all 30% from every transaction on Xbox consoles
loose every Game Pass Core subscriber
loose every Xbox Game Pass Console subscriber
loose majority of Game Pass Ultimate subscribers since those are tied to Xbox console ecosystem
loose sales of Xbox accessories (which aren't that bad)
they will gain additional revenue by releasing their games on PlayStation
they will gain few subscribers for Game Pass on PlayStation
All and all it's insanity and it doesn't make sense. I think that Microsoft would he happiest if console exclusives and consoles did not exist, because then the fight would move towards services where they are strong. But Microsoft isn't in position to dictate terms where market moves. And that's why they will keep making consoles. That's why they will not release majority of their first-party games on PlayStation. Even if they will sell half of what they are selling now. It's still in their benefit to make consoles. Because you are getting 30% from every transaction and it is way easier to monetise users on your platform as oppose to other platforms.
5 months ago Spencer said that they are not third-party publisher. So what exactly changed? Nothing.
@Fiendish-Beaver No, it's dumb.
Even with 35 studios Microsoft don't have and will never have output to sustain subscription service with first-party only. That's why Xbox Game Pass (and PlayStation Plus) has plenty of third-party games that are filling niche, providing plenty of content on regular basis to keep users subscribed.
Let's say Microsoft will release 1 big game every quarter. Why on earth would anybody subscribe for 1 new game every three months? It's stupid idea and Microsoft would never do it. It's whole Game Pass or nothing. Not "first-party only" crap. And that's why Sony refused it.
Not to say, Sony don't want subscription service with Call of Duty inside that subscription on their platform. Because they rely on 30% cut from every copy of Call of Duty sold. And Microsoft would never agree to a system that you HAVE TO subscribe to Game Pass only through PlayStation so they can provide Sony 30% of every Game Pass subscription. It's just not happening.
All that talk of Microsoft exiting console business is just wishful thinking of players who want to play next Doom/Dishonored 3/TES VI/Fable/Forza Horizon 6, but don't want to buy an Xbox. Current market just don't allow Microsoft to put their games on PlayStation without ruining Xbox business. Because while yes, Xbox is far away from PlayStation in terms of console sales, they are still 16 billion business (without ABK). And Microsoft knows that they can get most money out of their console users. And they just aren't stupid to let it go.
Especially since they don't even know effect of having Call of Duty day one in Game Pass on console sales.
@Balosi It's irrelevant because Sony just won't allow it. Game Pass is mashup of first and third party games. It's direct competition to PS Plus Extra/Premium. Sony don't want to competition on their consoles.
Sony also don't want sub service that will have Call of Duty on it, because they are dependent on 30% from every COD game purchase made on PlayStation.
So this conversation is literally irrelevant. Microsoft is willing to go third party if Sony would allow Game Pass in it's current form on PlayStation. But Sony won't allow it so things will remain exactly as they are now
To think that Destiny 2 was at best when Bungie was under Activision is really crazy. Everybody thought that it was Activision that was forcing Bungie to make bad decisions but it really seems like biggest enemy of Bungie is Bungie.
@Ainu20 Grubb said "I just want to clear it up, this game is not being worked on right now,” says Grubb, as spotted by Insider Gaming. “Just full stop. This game is not being worked on in any way, at any studio.”
After Schreier posted his "game is not dead" he said: "I'm happy to hear this. Like I said — this game is very unlikely to happen without a partner like Sony. And Sony seems to want nothing to do with it now. Maybe someone at Saber gets this together to pitch to someone else."
@DonaldMcRonald Yeah. But Grubb is hardly someone with bad track records.
Or I'm sure it's coincidence that Sony deleted KOTOR remake announcement from their official YT channel, social media and their own blog, right? And CEO of Embracer refused to comment on status of the project. It really sounds like everything is going smoothly.
@DonaldMcRonald Grubb said the project is dead and Sony wants out from it based from his source from Sony. He just wrongly assumed that project is dead because Sony have no interest in funding it anymore.
Schreier's sources are from Saber Interactive (developer). And they are still working on the game.
So, who will fund the development if Sony is out? Hardly Embracer (owner of Saber) since they have huge financial issues themselves.
So basically Sony wants to have nothing to do with this project anymore, but Saber is still keep working on it in hope that they will secure new publisher.
Avowed, Hellblade 2, MFS2024 and Towerborne all had trailers during june's showcase with 2024 "release year" Jesus. Microsoft Flight Sim even has year in it's name. It's hardly coming out in 2025.
Hellblade 2 was part of marketing push for Xbox so it's clear that they are ramping up for release. Towerborne was playable during Gamescom so it's also clear that game is close to release. ARA: History Untold is already in testing with players.
Stalker 2 is also pretty much given for 2024 since devs moved to Prague from Ukraine. Call of Duty is for sure coming in 2024. Only question marks are 33 Immortals and Ark 2.
And as I said, XGS boss hinted for more AAA games for second half of 2024.
So at least try to get your fact straight instead of playing dumb.
@ChrisDeku I would consider it with regards of pricing.
Helldivers 2 is 39,99€ on Steam
Hellblade 2 does not have a pricetag yet but there is no doubt it will be in 59,99€ - 69,99€ range.
I would not look at first Hellblade game and pass a judgement. Because while first game was budget title (and was sold for 30 bucks) made by 20 people, Ninja Theory currently has more then 140 employees. So I really doubt it's remotely comparable.
@MrMagic currently Stalker 2 ARA: History Untold Hellblade 2 Avowed Towerborne Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 Call of Duty 2024 Ark 2 33 Immortals
WoW is getting expansion and so is Diablo 4.
But XGS boss hinted at 4 big first-party games (1 per quarter) and since only big first-party games (not counting COD) are Hellblade 2 and Avowed, it seems like there will be more in second half of 2024. My hunch is Indiana Jones since according to the Bethesda FTC leak it was supposed to be out in 2022. So...reveal at TGA and release in october-november 2024?
2024 was always wishful thinking in my eyes. Wolverine leads are same guys who worked on Miles Morales, which was only finished at the end of 2020. So they basically started their work on Wolverine in 2021. Even as impressive as Insomniac devs are, 3 years for AAA game is just too short. Especially since it is not a "sequel"
It took 5 years for Spider-Man 1 team to create a sequel.
Honestly. I'm fully expecting 2025 "bait" during next year showcase but game will slip into 2026.
@somnambulance But the goal of those companies are to earn more money. ROI for successful live service game is just incomprehensibly higher then for single-player games.
Apex Legends came out in 2019 and earned EA more than 2 billion dollars. I really doubt that if you counted every Naughty Dog game (for example) in last 3 gen all together you would get 2 billions in revenue
@PixelDragon Yeah. It's almost like Jim Ryan have not said: "Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation," right? Luckily we have his statement in writing
@Kevw2006 But Game Pass is not only about first-party games, as you for sure know. And I really doubt that Sony would allow Game Pass on PlayStation even if it was "first-party games only" because that would include Call of Duty. And Sony pretty much relies on 30% cut from Call of Duty sales.
Game Pass with only first-party games is nonsensical. Nobody would subscribe for service that is providing 1 game every three months. And it's hardly imaginable that it would be sustainable for Microsoft to provide that kind of service. You need third-party content to sustain subscription service. Otherwise you are cooked.
EA Play is allowed on PlayStation because they are not including "third-party" games in their service. It's just their own games. And if you remember, Sony even had a problem with that for a long time.
Comments 751
Re: Following Embracer Shutdown, Volition Veterans Form New Outfit Shapeshifter Games
@Ken_Kaniff It would be strange if it wasn't like that.
They spent 80 billion on two publishers and have 32+ internal studios. If they can't release first-party games at a pace of at least 4-5 per year, something is seriously rotten there.
This year they have Towerborne, Call of Duty Gulf War, Avowed, Indiana Jones, ARA: History Untold, Hellblade 2 and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 which is pretty nice start.
Re: Rec Room Dev 'Can't Justify' a PSVR2 Port
@MattBoothDev It doesn't matter.
Meta Quest outsold PSVR2 30:1 during holidays on Amazon and that is translating into willingness of devs to port their games onto platform.
Unless Sony pays for that port of course.
Re: Rec Room Dev 'Can't Justify' a PSVR2 Port
I think writing is on the wall for PSVR2.
0 first-party PSVR2 games announced. Sales dropped from a cliff. And now even third-party devs are saying that there is no point in porting their games for platform.
Re: Suicide Squad Teases Major Post-Launch Support, 'Hundreds' of Build Combinations
@Lavishturtle Rocksteady never worked on Superman game. It was rumor originated from a guy who mixed up studios. Warner Bros. Montreal worked on Superman game (makers of Gotham Knights). But not Rocksteady.
Re: PS Store Sales Charts: Few Surprises for PS5, PS4 Over Crucial Christmas Period
I'm kinda surprised Spider-Man 2 wasn't even close to beat Modern Warfare 3 considering MW3 reviews...
Re: Helldivers 2 Confirms PS5, PC Crossplay with Inspirational Gameplay Trailer
I see that PlayStation community on the internet is dealing with same stuff as Xbox community when Sea of Thieves launched on PC - "Why we have to pay to access multiplayer in this game, but PC gamers don't need to?"
Re: Rumour: Sea of Thieves Might Be One More Xbox Game Coming to PS5
@EquiinoxGII People who are cheering for this development are in for a rude awakening.
Without Xbox hardware, Sony can do basically whatever they want with prices on PlayStation. I'm sure people would be fine with PlayStation 6 for 700$, right?
Re: Rumour: Sea of Thieves Might Be One More Xbox Game Coming to PS5
@UltimateOtaku91 No it isn't
Unless it's also coming to mobile and Arcade machines
I'm not trying to say that Hi-Fi Rush is not coming to other platforms, but I'm just pointing out that this rating is just there to "cover their asses" and not because announcement is incoming. Also, rating is from december 2022 so other platforms are included for more then year. And PS5 is missing
Re: Sony's Third-Party Chief Explains How PlayStation Makes PS5 the Best Place to Play
I like haptics, but Adaptive Triggers is most annoying ***** ever and I disabled it on console settings. But it kinda screwed me because Adaptive Trigger mechanic is huge part of Returnal for example...
Re: Days Gone Dev on New PS5 Exclusive: We're Cooking
Yeah. I'm still not expecting any news about this game this year.
5 years in development is common in current AAA game industry (even more with new IP) and considering they only started development on that new IP in 2021, I'm expecting this game at the end of current gen. So there is no point in revealing that game this year.
Re: Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick Is Stepping Down on 29th December, 2023
@Impossibilium Okay. You clearly can't separate disgusting personality of Kotick from his ability to run successful business. So there is literally no point to talk to you about it.
Re: Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick Is Stepping Down on 29th December, 2023
@Impossibilium Well. I don't want to ruin a dream for you, but making money for investors/shareholders is purpose of publicly traded company
Re: Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick Is Stepping Down on 29th December, 2023
@Impossibilium He owned huge amount of shares so his compensation is not surprising in the slightest.
And whatever you might think of him, he saved Activision from bankruptcy and he made it one of the most successful gaming companies in history.
Re: Devs Weigh in on 'Disgraceful' Insomniac Games Data Breach
@dv_xedge Well. We will see how leaks will be handled by those same sites in future. If it is more about "it's Insomniac" or more about "it's morally wrong."
But I digress. I'm interested in those information and there will be always someone who is willing to cover it, so I will read it there. It's not even that hard to access those files for yourself.
Re: Devs Weigh in on 'Disgraceful' Insomniac Games Data Breach
@Gunnerzaurus PushSquare covered Capcom leaks but is refusing to cover Insomniac leaks (so I expect this comment to be deleted). Gamespot editor also said that they will not cover Insomniac leaks why they covered Capcom leaks. And don't get me started on youtubers.
And while I understand difference between "Xbox leak" and Insomniac leak (Xbox basically doxxed themselves by uploading underacted files), there is no difference between Capcom and Insomniac leaks because they both originated from ransmoware hackers who published data.
And okay. Every web can choose where is their line in the sand. But don't use excuses when you covered information from same situation to try to get into moral highground.
Re: Devs Weigh in on 'Disgraceful' Insomniac Games Data Breach
@Gunnerzaurus But then don't argue with "we won't cover it because it's stolen information" when exactly same thing happened with Capcom and they covered it. Because it's just hypocrisy at that point.
Re: Devs Weigh in on 'Disgraceful' Insomniac Games Data Breach
It's really strange how differently are devs voicing their opinions about this leak.
Capcom had massive breach that revealed private info about employees and also revealed slate of their games for next 6 years and almost nobody cared and every website covered that leak.
But Insomniac suffered same breach and now everybody is concerned including some websites and people from gaming media?
I don't want to spread conspiracies but it really looks like they are afraid that Sony will take away their access to review codes/preview events etc. and that's why they won't cover it. And while I understand Insomniac devs being pissed at this situation, this really smells like double standard.
Re: Insomniac Hackers Allegedly Leak Terabytes of Internal Information
Jesus. Those royalties for Marvel are absolutely insane.
It cost 315 million dollars for Sony to make Spider-Man 2
From every 70$ on Digital copies they need to send 6,3 - 12,6$ to Marvel.
From every 70$ on Physical copies they need to send 13,3 - 18,2$ to Marvel. Not to mention cut for retailers, distribution companies etc.
From every DLC they need to send 19-26% to Marvel
From every hardware bundle they need to send 24,5 - 35$ to Marvel
Which means that if you bought PlayStation 5 Slim Spider-Man 2 bundle for 449$, not only Sony probably lost money on actual hardware unit sold, they also lost additional 24,5 - 35$ because of Marvel cut.
Which also means that if similar provision exist for Modern Warfare 3 PS5 bundles, with every PlayStation 5 Slim sold, Microsoft got huge chunk of money.
Re: The Last of Us' Cancelled PS5 Multiplayer Was 'More Fun' Than Any Other Online Game
@themightyant Yeah. I tend to agree. I'm taking it as an official "excuse" and if it is true, that it's absolutely on Naugty Dog's management.
But my theory is just that they tried to do TLOU Online in "Naughty Dog way" and Bungie just told them that nobody will play it long term and live service without longevity is useless. So they have the option to adapt mechanics which would keep engagement or ditch the project entirely and they chose latter.
In my opinion, Naughty Dog strengths as developer are just incompatible with live service games. They care about carefully constructed narratives, animation and technical perfection, but they are not strong in gameplay mechanics and being able to churn new content fast enough. No live service players cares about lengthy cutscenes, obsessive animation quality and technical perfection. They care about engaging gameplay and new content
Re: The Last of Us' Cancelled PS5 Multiplayer Was 'More Fun' Than Any Other Online Game
@thefourfoldroot1 It's bad management from Naughty Dog.
How on earth are you developing a game for 4 years and only after all that time you realised how many devs would be needed to sustain this live service?
Jesus. There are plenty of successful live service games like Apex, Fortnite etc. that should give you a clear picture what resources are needed for managing that type of game.
They now basically wasted 4 years of dev time on huge part of studio that could be used to make 2 AAA games during PS5 generation instead of one. Because there is just no way ND will be able to make more then one AAA game until end of generation.
Re: The Last of Us Multiplayer Project Is Officially Cancelled
I'm sorry, but this is just pathetic.
How many dev time was wasted on this project and how it is possible that studio like Naughty Dog had no clue how many people would be needed to sustain live service game?
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@mrbone Fact that you have account in services doesn't make you MAU (Monthly active user). You should know that before you want to use phrases like liar.
Since you are arguing about bad numbers, isn't selling 20 million copies of a game that sold 120 million consoles also bad number?
I don't think Indiana Jones would sell more then PlayStation exclusives even if it was multiplatform (including PlayStation release). Mainly because I don't think Indiana Jones has brand recognition as Spider-Man (for example). Even if it will be excellent game.
I don't even need to "convince you" about anything. Numbers speak for itself. PC gaming market is similar size as market of all 3 console manufacturers combined.
https://fatihyazici7.medium.com/game-industry-overview-and-trends-f697fc13d702
And about my allegiances. I have PlayStation 5 and Series X. So you can imply whatever you want...
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@mrbone https://www.tweaktown.com/news/89084/pc-market-rapidly-expands-as-steam-hits-record-30-million-concurrent-users/index.html
Epic also publishes their MAU at EGS every year, so you can easily check it out. Steam is also growing so that 120 million is currently probably higher. And as I said, I didn't count huge crowd of Battle.net users and Riot Launcher users, and smaller crowds of Xbox App users, EA Play users, Ubisoft Connect users and GOG users.
Games are selling on PC, but PC has way more games and also different preferences. For example, Baldur's Gate 3 sold way more copies on PC because console gamers are not that hot on CRPG games while PC gamers are. Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 also sold best on PC. So trying to pretend that PC is small market is just pure lunacy. Riot literally never released game on consoles and they are one of the biggest gaming company on the market.
"Oh GP always count everyone who downloads and plays even 10 sec." Yes. And copy sold is copy sold even if person never played the game or played 10 minutes. And also when game is bundled with console (ehm. God of War Ragnarok, Spider-Man 2). But if you want to claim that 35 million Forza Horizon 5 players only played the game for 10 minutes and never turned it again then be my guest.
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@mrbone I literally provided you hard number of MAU on two PC stores that vastly exceeds number of PlayStation users.
Rockstar is not releasing GTA VI on PC day one because they know they can double dip on people who are impatient and will buy GTA VI on PlayStation/Xbox and then on PC. Which is smart on their part.
Also. I never claimed that Indiana Jones will outsell PlayStation exclusives. I just said that it's not as big deal to skip PlayStation as some of the PlayStation users claim it is thanks to Xbox+PC combined audience.
And regarding "small size" of Xbox+PC audience. Forza Horizon 5 exceeded 35 million players. Not bad for "just" racing game
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@Kevw2006 Mate. Steam alone has 126 million MAU which is more then PlayStation (107 million). Add EGS (estimates talk about 62 million MAU), GoG, Battle.net, Riot Launcher, Xbox Store on PC, EA Store, Ubisoft Connect etc. and you will maybe get a grip about how huge PC market actually is.
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@Titntin Do you understand why exclusives are called exclusives right? Because they exclude a group of people.
MachineGames (and Arkane Lyon) are owned by Microsoft. Microsoft is funding development of Indiana Jones and Blade. They are first party games in same vein as Wolverine and Spider-Man. Also they didn't "bought" IP, they just licensed it.
Also. PC is not "Microsoft's platform." PC is open platform with competing stores and Microsoft sees no money from copy of other games sold through GoG/EGS/Steam. So arguing with that is pretty stupid.
And don't claim it's only about "removing games already being made for different competitor" because people bitch about Blade and that game started development in 2022 - when it was pretty clear that no PlayStation version is or ever will be developed.
As I said. This whole spiel is about PlayStation fans being angry, because they are used to have everything. So now they are trying to invent theories why it doesn't make financial sense for Indiana Jones and Blade to be exclusive for Disney. When in reality, those game are exclusive to bring people into Xbox ecosystem.
I want to play Indiana Jones/Fable/Gears 6 etc. so I bought Xbox. I recently purchased PlayStation 5 because there are plenty of games I don't want to miss. It's business so stop arguing with morality and ethics.
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@Recover20 I agree.
But my point was more about people bitching about Microsoft "being exclusionary" when it's Sony that is way more "exclusionary"
Which is not a bad thing of course. Every company has their own strategy and they are trying to make it work. But at least people should stop being hypocrite.
Re: Disney Doesn't Think It Was 'Overly Exclusionary' to Cut Planned PS5 Version of Indiana Jones
@Northern_munkey It's nowhere near exclusionary as Wolverine/Spider-Man 2.
Because while yes, PlayStation 5 is selling way better then Series X/S, Sony is still ignoring PC market with day one releases. Microsoft is not. So looking at it only through optics of "Xbox is selling worse" is really disingenuous.
So let's say it through numbers
Sony with Spider-Man/Wolverine is ignoring 300+ million PC users, 130 million Switch users, 25 million Series X/S users
Microsoft with Indiana Jones is ignoring 50 million PlayStation users and 130 million Switch users.
So who exactly is more exclusionary?
Indiana Jones and Blade are just about fact that PlayStation users aren't used to being overlooked with AAA releases and they are used to play everything from JRPG games to big named licensed IP's.
Re: Lead Bungie Staff Fear 'Total Sony Takeover' After Layoffs, Delays
@Art_Vandelay Lol. Bethesda was never promised "freedom." Just that they will keep operational structure.
Re: Lead Bungie Staff Fear 'Total Sony Takeover' After Layoffs, Delays
@get2sammyb Yeah. Bungie was always at it's best when they have knife to their necks.
Halo 2
Destiny The Taken King
Destiny 2 Forsaken
and now.
But there is no "winner" in this situation. Contrary to popular belief, Sony "taking over" Bungie will not be a win, because Sony don't have a clue how to run live service studio. That's why they bought them in the first place. And let's not pretend that Bungie are clueless since they are running one live service game for 10 years.
Sony spent 3,6 billion, so if Bungie is not successful, they effectively "blew" the money. They will save part of 1 billion retention bonuses though. And if they will take over Bungie, it could lead to many devs wanted to go out, since culture of Bungie is based on "***** all of them, we are Bungie" attitude. And it's not like they will have a problem getting a jobs since Seattle is pretty competitive place in terms of gaming studios.
Re: Just One Day Later, Microsoft Has 'No Plans to Bring Game Pass' to PS5, PS4
People maybe should read more properly.
Stuart was talking about games and services in relation to Activision Blizzard specifically. But in age when every non-story have to be turn to shocking story, this is where we ended up. People latched on 50% YoY sales drop of Xbox consoles in Europe, tied this to Stuart's statement taken out of context and suddenly Game Pass is coming to PlayStation and Microsoft is exiting console business.
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
@Fiendish-Beaver I mean yeah. Sure. They can revisit their approach. But they are not.
Mainly because Stuart was talking about Microsoft's position in relation to ABK which many sites including this one conveniently ignore. But whatever.
I would argue that game that has OC Score of 85 can hardly be described as "having middling reviews" but whatever.
My point is that Starfield exactly prove that having exclusive first-party content is a way to go. Because Starfield brought highest uptick of new Game Pass subscribers since service was started and it directly led to more Series X/S sales. So info that Microsoft got from Starfield is "it works, we just need more of it." Which doesn't sound like "we are going third party."
It would be even stupider to go third-party since Microsoft currently doesn't know if having COD in Game Pass day one would not swing things more in their favour. On the other hand if they are undecided they still needs to work on next-gen system because it takes several years to research and make next-gen console. So they basically can't back off from next-gen.
I would still argue that having 30% from every transaction in you ecosystem with 50 million console sold brings more revenue then going third-party.
Goal for Microsoft now should be to finish ***** of first-party games they have in development and then release them and AFTER that decide what to do next. Which won't be sooner than 2027.
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
@Fiendish-Beaver I disagree. Back catalogue will bring you some players, not nowhere near enough to sustain a sub service.
But okay. For sake of argument let's say, that Microsoft will exit a console race and start being third-party publisher with Game Pass on PlayStation and Switch. They will
All and all it's insanity and it doesn't make sense. I think that Microsoft would he happiest if console exclusives and consoles did not exist, because then the fight would move towards services where they are strong. But Microsoft isn't in position to dictate terms where market moves. And that's why they will keep making consoles. That's why they will not release majority of their first-party games on PlayStation. Even if they will sell half of what they are selling now. It's still in their benefit to make consoles. Because you are getting 30% from every transaction and it is way easier to monetise users on your platform as oppose to other platforms.
5 months ago Spencer said that they are not third-party publisher. So what exactly changed? Nothing.
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
@Fiendish-Beaver No, it's dumb.
Even with 35 studios Microsoft don't have and will never have output to sustain subscription service with first-party only. That's why Xbox Game Pass (and PlayStation Plus) has plenty of third-party games that are filling niche, providing plenty of content on regular basis to keep users subscribed.
Let's say Microsoft will release 1 big game every quarter. Why on earth would anybody subscribe for 1 new game every three months? It's stupid idea and Microsoft would never do it. It's whole Game Pass or nothing. Not "first-party only" crap. And that's why Sony refused it.
Not to say, Sony don't want subscription service with Call of Duty inside that subscription on their platform. Because they rely on 30% cut from every copy of Call of Duty sold. And Microsoft would never agree to a system that you HAVE TO subscribe to Game Pass only through PlayStation so they can provide Sony 30% of every Game Pass subscription. It's just not happening.
All that talk of Microsoft exiting console business is just wishful thinking of players who want to play next Doom/Dishonored 3/TES VI/Fable/Forza Horizon 6, but don't want to buy an Xbox. Current market just don't allow Microsoft to put their games on PlayStation without ruining Xbox business. Because while yes, Xbox is far away from PlayStation in terms of console sales, they are still 16 billion business (without ABK). And Microsoft knows that they can get most money out of their console users. And they just aren't stupid to let it go.
Especially since they don't even know effect of having Call of Duty day one in Game Pass on console sales.
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
@Balosi It's irrelevant because Sony just won't allow it.
Game Pass is mashup of first and third party games. It's direct competition to PS Plus Extra/Premium. Sony don't want to competition on their consoles.
Sony also don't want sub service that will have Call of Duty on it, because they are dependent on 30% from every COD game purchase made on PlayStation.
So this conversation is literally irrelevant. Microsoft is willing to go third party if Sony would allow Game Pass in it's current form on PlayStation. But Sony won't allow it so things will remain exactly as they are now
Re: Destiny 2's Latest Microtransaction Is So Bad Bungie's Already Removed It from PS5, PS4
To think that Destiny 2 was at best when Bungie was under Activision is really crazy. Everybody thought that it was Activision that was forcing Bungie to make bad decisions but it really seems like biggest enemy of Bungie is Bungie.
Re: US Children Want Subscriptions and Currencies for Christmas, Not Games
@BetaRabbit64 I mean. You have new games included in subscription. So you are kinda asking for new games.
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic PS5 Remake Reportedly Not Dead, Actually
@Ainu20 Grubb said
"I just want to clear it up, this game is not being worked on right now,” says Grubb, as spotted by Insider Gaming. “Just full stop. This game is not being worked on in any way, at any studio.”
After Schreier posted his "game is not dead" he said: "I'm happy to hear this. Like I said — this game is very unlikely to happen without a partner like Sony. And Sony seems to want nothing to do with it now. Maybe someone at Saber gets this together to pitch to someone else."
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic PS5 Remake Reportedly Not Dead, Actually
@DonaldMcRonald Yeah. But Grubb is hardly someone with bad track records.
Or I'm sure it's coincidence that Sony deleted KOTOR remake announcement from their official YT channel, social media and their own blog, right? And CEO of Embracer refused to comment on status of the project. It really sounds like everything is going smoothly.
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic PS5 Remake Reportedly Not Dead, Actually
@DonaldMcRonald Grubb said the project is dead and Sony wants out from it based from his source from Sony. He just wrongly assumed that project is dead because Sony have no interest in funding it anymore.
Schreier's sources are from Saber Interactive (developer). And they are still working on the game.
So, who will fund the development if Sony is out? Hardly Embracer (owner of Saber) since they have huge financial issues themselves.
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic PS5 Remake Reportedly Not Dead, Actually
So basically Sony wants to have nothing to do with this project anymore, but Saber is still keep working on it in hope that they will secure new publisher.
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Remake Reportedly Deader than Alderaan
@Torque
Avowed, Hellblade 2, MFS2024 and Towerborne all had trailers during june's showcase with 2024 "release year"
Jesus. Microsoft Flight Sim even has year in it's name. It's hardly coming out in 2025.
Hellblade 2 was part of marketing push for Xbox so it's clear that they are ramping up for release. Towerborne was playable during Gamescom so it's also clear that game is close to release. ARA: History Untold is already in testing with players.
Stalker 2 is also pretty much given for 2024 since devs moved to Prague from Ukraine. Call of Duty is for sure coming in 2024.
Only question marks are 33 Immortals and Ark 2.
And as I said, XGS boss hinted for more AAA games for second half of 2024.
So at least try to get your fact straight instead of playing dumb.
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Remake Reportedly Deader than Alderaan
@ChrisDeku I would consider it with regards of pricing.
Helldivers 2 is 39,99€ on Steam
Hellblade 2 does not have a pricetag yet but there is no doubt it will be in 59,99€ - 69,99€ range.
I would not look at first Hellblade game and pass a judgement. Because while first game was budget title (and was sold for 30 bucks) made by 20 people, Ninja Theory currently has more then 140 employees. So I really doubt it's remotely comparable.
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Remake Reportedly Deader than Alderaan
@Torque What?
All of those games are confirmed to be out in 2024. Barring a huge delay of course. Which in case of Ark 2 is possible.
Re: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Remake Reportedly Deader than Alderaan
@MrMagic currently
Stalker 2
ARA: History Untold
Hellblade 2
Avowed
Towerborne
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
Call of Duty 2024
Ark 2
33 Immortals
WoW is getting expansion and so is Diablo 4.
But XGS boss hinted at 4 big first-party games (1 per quarter) and since only big first-party games (not counting COD) are Hellblade 2 and Avowed, it seems like there will be more in second half of 2024. My hunch is Indiana Jones since according to the Bethesda FTC leak it was supposed to be out in 2022. So...reveal at TGA and release in october-november 2024?
Re: Rumour: Marvel's Wolverine PS5 Release Date Reportedly 2025, Not Next Year
2024 was always wishful thinking in my eyes.
Wolverine leads are same guys who worked on Miles Morales, which was only finished at the end of 2020. So they basically started their work on Wolverine in 2021. Even as impressive as Insomniac devs are, 3 years for AAA game is just too short. Especially since it is not a "sequel"
It took 5 years for Spider-Man 1 team to create a sequel.
Honestly. I'm fully expecting 2025 "bait" during next year showcase but game will slip into 2026.
Re: Single Player Wonder Woman Game May Still Have Live-Service Elements
@somnambulance But the goal of those companies are to earn more money. ROI for successful live service game is just incomprehensibly higher then for single-player games.
Apex Legends came out in 2019 and earned EA more than 2 billion dollars. I really doubt that if you counted every Naughty Dog game (for example) in last 3 gen all together you would get 2 billions in revenue
Re: The Last of Us 2 PS5 Remaster Announced, Has a Brand New Survival Mode, $10 Upgrade Path
Naughty Dog this gen
2 remasters
1 "remake"
0 original games
simply brilliant...
Re: PS5 Is Now Above PS4 in USA, While Its New-Gen Rival Flounders
@PixelDragon Yeah. It's almost like Jim Ryan have not said: "Our Business Would Never Recover' If Microsoft Degraded Call of Duty on PlayStation," right?
Luckily we have his statement in writing
Re: PS5 Is Now Above PS4 in USA, While Its New-Gen Rival Flounders
@Kevw2006 But Game Pass is not only about first-party games, as you for sure know. And I really doubt that Sony would allow Game Pass on PlayStation even if it was "first-party games only" because that would include Call of Duty. And Sony pretty much relies on 30% cut from Call of Duty sales.
Game Pass with only first-party games is nonsensical. Nobody would subscribe for service that is providing 1 game every three months. And it's hardly imaginable that it would be sustainable for Microsoft to provide that kind of service. You need third-party content to sustain subscription service. Otherwise you are cooked.
EA Play is allowed on PlayStation because they are not including "third-party" games in their service. It's just their own games. And if you remember, Sony even had a problem with that for a long time.