MS7000

Ahh, wonderful. Sony are doing what Nintendo are doing at present and porting games from immediately the generation before. Well, if I give them crap for doing it, I can give Sony crap for it too.

@Baz12345 Hmmm, but Ratchet and Clank came out on PS4 in April 2016. =P

Seriously though, how is my comment "spreading rumours"? All my comment said was that the next thing Jimmy Jim Jam will tell us is that it is not as impossible on PS4 as they first made it out to be. I never said anything about it being confirmed at this moment, just that given the trend of PS5 games being crossgen, it would not surprise me if they confirm the new Ratchet and Clank for PS4 too.

@Peach64 I don't know, seems awfully last minute for such a drastic change in plan, especially with Covid. No, I think Sony were always planning this, but were too busy hyping up PS5.

Next thing you know, Ratchet and Clank doesn't need that SSD for instant loading after all.

Yeah, this has just reinforced my feeling that next gen can wait a year or two. I'll wait for both Series X and PS5 to drop in price considerably, then I'll have another think.

...

The PS5 is becoming more and more unappealing. Only thing we are missing is a Knack equivalent.

Wait what... oh.

PS4 version for me then please.

So still no reason for me to subscribe to Plus?

Cool.

£50 cheaper than I thought it was going to be, but eh, still not cheap enough for me at present. Will wait.

About 3 months before my time, so no. Sister had one but threw it away for some reason.

Now that I think about it, the only console that I brought on launch day was the Switch, the next closest being my 3DS a day after release, and the Wii U about 2-3 weeks after launch. Otherwise, all the consoles I have brought have been someway into their lifecycle.

And here is the monetisation. Again, Games as a Service is a plague among gaming.

One thing that kinda makes me sad is that unlike the original Lego Star Wars games, they appear to have dialogue, when the originals did alot of showing rather than telling with the expressions and staying silent.

Cautiously optimistic in this...

@kyleforrester87 I do feel like Liam got an awful lot of flak here which is a shame. Articles like this are still good, if for no other reason than the discussions that result. And I did enjoy the article even if I ultimately disagree with the content for the most part.

@SirAngry From my understanding with FIFA, Ultimate Team does not carry over between games, so as a result, people start over from scratch eveytime. So why would EA make a subscription service when not only are people more than willing to pay $60 a year for the game (you could argue this is a subscription fee), but the players start from scratch everytime with their UT experience? With a subscription service, whilst the revenue would be constant, I doubt it would be as much since no need to start UT from scratch.

@kyleforrester87 it’s rarely discussed because it’s blatantly obvious and a none issue for the majority of people. The vocal minority will get their knickers in a twist over “losing ownership” but most people don’t give a crap and would rather sacrifice certain things to gain others. Again, it comes down to a lack of willingness to accept change by the consumer as much as it is publishers and developers taking the piss with extortionate pricing and dodgy tactics. Somewhere in the middle is progress.

I feel like you are correct that people who care about ownership are in the minority, but that begs the question; what do people like me who disagree with the general direction that gaming is going do short of leaving gaming for good? Do we just shut up and accept it? Publishers would be jumping for joy at the logic. Progress is not a bad thing in of itself, but progress for the sake of progress is stupid. It is the same attitude of indifference which has led to practices like DLC and microtransactions and lootboxes becoming common.

As much as I like seeing others enjoy games, and as selfish as it is for me to say it; I feel like gaming becoming mainstream was the worse thing to happen to it. There are too many people who play games now because of how accessible it is, who do not care for the politics of gaming. Why would developers or companies listen to us, when they have a lot more people, who make up a much larger audience, who see gaming experiences as little more than disposable such as going to the cinema?

No thanks. Sony will never get me to subscribe. I am still somewhat hoping the rumour about Microsoft offering free online is true in hopes of a paradigm shift.

@nessisonett I don't think he has been confirmed playable yet, is that correct? If he has, then that is a goof on my behalf as I must of slept. I remember him being in a trailer but not playable yet. It would make sense since he is already there.

Deadpool or Ant-Man. One of the two. Watch this space (probably wrong but eh).

@LiamCroft I still feel like your definition of GaaS is too broad. A game having DLC does not inherently make it GaaS. Otherwise, where is Oblivion's latest DLC? It has been a few years after all. I thought that would also fit GaaS by your own definition.

What commonly separates games with DLC from GaaS is the idea of the game constantly evolving to the point where even the base experience is no longer the same. Street Fighter V could be considered GaaS, as that game is constantly evolving; it has weekly challenges which you either play to earn in game currency, or you pay to play with said currency to earn other content such as costumes. Said content is then unavailable beyond that week, possibly forever (unless I am mistaken, I cannot get the "Asura" costume for Kage now as I was not playing the game at a certain time about a year ago). The game also has new mechanics and moves such as a second V Trigger when the game originally featured one for each character. Not to mention balance patches. The game experience is different now from when I first played ages ago with some content even being no longer available; the inherent nature of a service is what it offers over time changes; this is true for games too.

If we look at Witcher 3, the game itself has not changed over time. The mechanics have stayed the same, and the 16 free DLCs you are referring to was done over a very short period after launch. By the definition which you have in quotations from Wikipedia, the game would not qualify as a service since the game does not offer new content frequently over a long period of time. Most importantly, the base game has not been altered, just additional content thrown on type. Even the expansions whilst they may offer something new, do not change anything about the original game.

Witcher 3 is like adding chocolate sauce on ice-cream; you can still see the individual parts and acknowledge and enjoy them for what they are. Meanwhile, GaaS is a smoothie; it may have started as individual fruits, but the form has changed so much that it is impossible to tell what it was before at a glance.

I feel like I am rambling now, so I shall stop there for now.

Ahh, the wonderful future of gaming. Don't you just love it? Get a good whiff, you'll be smelling a lot of this crap in the near future.

@SirAngry Ha! I did see in your previous comments that you were working to a deadline. Admittedly when I made my comment, I went to bed shortly after. Hope you have managed to get some sleep now and are not currently running on empty.

@get2sammyb "What if I remembered how much I loved Crazy Taxi and then went to play it and the core experience was there, as I remember it? But now I had a ton new drivers to try out, a bunch of ways to customise my taxis, an additional branch of Crazy Box minigames to complete, and a whole new map to explore?"

That would be nice, but it is a moot point because the content would never be free, either because you are paying for it yourself, or because what people in the industry like to call "whales", spend so much on the industry that they can develop the content and release it as "free" for everyone else.

GaaS CAN theoretically be done in a "pro consumer" fashion (in that sense, I would say Liam has a point), but there is no incentive for a game company to do so. And even when it seems like companies are doing this correctly, you could argue that what actually happened is content has been held back on purpose to give the illusion that you are getting extra content for free. Just because something has the potential for good, does not mean it will be, and the industry has given plenty of examples of how GaaS are anti-consumer.

GaaS being good is pointless to think about when the only logical use for it as a business, is to make more money. I do not think GaaS is misunderstood; I think the general understanding and fear of them is fair, and even if GaaS is misunderstood, it is entirely a problem of the industries own making.

Just realised I never commented on the situation with Crystal Dynamics reportedly offering content for free. They may do in the beginning, but only until the point where the game itself no longer sells for full price. Once we reach that point, I fully expect CD to do what every other GaaS does, and add microtransactions and other shady monetisation practices to make the game worth developing for.

I feel like we are arguing about semantics here. The definition given in the article feels too broad.

Also, in the hypothetical situation that there are no caveats to getting more content such as extra characters and the like, there is also the problem that content may not be as consistent since the team will most likely constantly change throughout development. At least with developing individual titles, there is a shared vision which should lead into a solid game even if the experience is ultimately finite.

I also personally do not like "Games as a Service" as the nature of how "Games as a Service" works, renders physical media in a weaker position, as it will never contain the whole game. Probably won't mean much to the average player nowadays, but I still prefer physical, so games that are constantly changing just irk me.

13/20. Some I played, others were educated guesses and process of elimination.

I hope this is true so I can finally find out what the hype is about.

Price has been a sticking point for me in general, though at this point, I think regardless of price I still won't be buying this at launch. I will wait for the time being until I think it is worth my time, or I somehow magically run out of PS4 games to play (huge backlog, so doubtful).

@NomNom I am aware, but it does have caveats such as ads as you have said, not to mention I believe last time I checked, picture quality was lower? I know I sound picky, but I want it in the best quality possible.

Edit: It is useful for previewing an anime before committing to buying though.

Given that Sony already own Funimation, this makes me uncomfortable. To be fair though, Crunchyroll is not a service I use; I believe I have mentioned this before, but I despise subscription services. What I do is I typically wait for recommendations from a friend who more actively watches anime than me, then I just buy the Blu-ray/DVDs and watch that way.

More expensive? Probably in the long run compared to what you would get otherwise. But I don't actively follow anime enough to justify paying the subscription (and again, I hate, HATE, subscriptions).

@GADG3Tx87 Agreed. Although like many things in the industry, this will soon become normal. Companies have mastered the art of going two steps forward and one step back when called out. Time marches ever forward.

I hope I am wrong of course, but I don't think I will be.

Licensing is a bugger, and a bit miffed about having to buy separately but I can understand. I am just glad the meme lives again. Add Knuckles as Sega owns Atlus, and you have the trifecta.

3/10, all 3 were guesses. To be fair, despite the supposed reputation, I have only ever played Uncharted 1 and TLOU. Don't particularly know them that well as a result.

"Micosoft mde tumb raidr exlusive, so y Sny getin calld out fo it?"

Probably because this practice sucks regardless of who does it?

Exclusive games? Sure, only a good thing as far as I am concerned.

Timed exclusives and ongoing perks for one particular platform? S****y. It accomplishes nothing because all you are doing is either making someone wait for no reason, or you are purposely making all versions bar one inferior. If you are planning on being multiplatform, you should be aiming for parity as much as possible. No one benefits from timed-exclusives or exclusive perks.

Pardon me, I just puked up my intestines and 6 litres of blood.

This honestly gives me no hope for the future of gaming. Even if physical games still exist, there is so much crap polluting it such as microtransactions and subscriptions, and the worse part is that there is no incentive for companies to ever change.

@clvr "What's the number that comes after 2? Numbers are hard." -Gabe Newell

Probably explains why he likes the Series X over the PS5. No numbers in Series X, but there is a number other than 1 or 2 in PS5.

We know very little about this game. The first thing that screenshot made me think of is a cleaner more detailed Skyrim. I have yet to make up my mind about whether that is a good thing or not.

Sounds like one to pick-up when cheaper.

Just give us a date for the love of Lucifer!

So the definitive edition being released is a port of the Switch version, meaning better/same resolution as original PS4 release, but looking graphically the same as Switch, meaning less foliage and other details.

I am baffled by Squenix, but at the same time, I find this incredibly funny. I was waiting until payday to buy the Switch version (enjoyed the PS4 original version very much), but then saw this. Knowing what I do now, I think I will continue to buy it on Switch for portability now I know that graphically there won't be much difference. But still, this is amazingly baffling.

Only played two of them (although I do have a copy of Dreams which I got for free, just not played it) so...

Two Point Hospital and Persona 5 Royal.

It feels wierd knowing that they are giving dubs to the games from now on. I thought Judgment was going to be an exception...

Ehh, I'll probably still play with Japanese dub.

Where's Scramble Atlus? There is a definitely an audience for it!

Own 3, platinumed 2 (Horizon and Spider-Man). Don't own FF VII as I still have not played a single game in the series.

@EVIL-C i was honestly expecting more people to disagree with me and say that paying for online is a good thing, or that PS+ is a good deal without the online. The value is subjective of course, but it has never been worth much for me. NSO is cheap, but I have not noticed any real improvement in the quality of online gameplay. I can't vouch for PS+ because I have never owned it, nor do I have experience with online on PS3 to compare it to, so perhaps there is some quality improvement there, I am unsure.

Yeah, I despise paying for online, and the other 'perks' don't really entice me. I will get flack for this, but nothing would make me happier than PSPlus burning to the ground, along with other online subscriptions (Xbox Live Gold and NSO).

...And I just finished the second game.

That's a snub right there. It's okay SEGA, I still love you.

Edit: I am half-waiting for the Yakuza memes. Playstation players doing their own version of Bakamitai.

5/15. To be perfectly honest, I guessed all of them too except one. I owned a PS2, but I did not own a single first-party title except for a couple of EyeToy games. My Playstation knowledge is mainly PS4, and that is it.

I see Persona 4 Golden on that list. The interest is definitely there. Atlus just needs to bring it elsewhere.

This is an interesting strategy. If it works, the pay off will look very tasty indeed, but I feel that the price will be the stickler here. Sony are producing these extra due to the current pandemic and those who are still in lockdown, but there is every possibility that people are beginning to struggle financially if they weren't already due to the length of lockdown/restrictions so far in which case, stock won't shift.

I could be wrong of course, gaming did have quite the increase so far in terms of revenue for the current pandemic and the lack of Switches has very clearly bit Nintendo in the butt, but quite a lot of that was earlier in the pandemic when the lockdown was still new. Months later where people's jobs don't look as secure anymore, and people might be a bit nervous of spending £500 (personal guess) or so on a new console. Sure, the consoles will probably sell eventually, but they could be in a warehouse for months before being sold, which is a waste of inventory space.

Knowing Sony though, this is probably a calculated-risk so they should be fine.

For the most part, no I would not be willing to pay the premium. Mainly because with most of my PS4 games, I never felt the need to pre-order the games. The only real exceptions I can think of are persona games. Otherwise only the odd game I will pay full price for.

You could argue that I am contributing to the problem as people with my mindset are why developers feel they can excuse microtransactions, but realistically, even if I did pay full price for all my games, I still think MTX would exist purely because companies know they can make money off of them.