@Ravix yes that’s true. Console will always be better optimised than pc and devs will get more performance from the hardware than they would from the equivalent power on pc. Also, while Microsoft utilise directx based dev tools which are ubiquitous across pc and Xbox, Sony use their own bespoke dev software for playstation. Sony’s toolset always seems to be the most efficient in terms of performance output when compared Xbox. Will be interesting to see what the ps5 pro is capable of when it launches.
Yes, similarly to you, I wanted Sony or Microsoft to produce a bleeding edge system at whatever premium that cost. I eventually realised that this will never come to pass and decided to buy a pc this year. I want to guarantee that I can play every new release at 1440p native 60fps, which I now can. I’ll probably spend the ps5 pro cost on a gpu when it launches instead. If the nvidia 5070 is available at that time and affordable I’ll be buying that and enjoy greater performance coupled with 4th generation rtx features, frame generation and 5th generation dlss.
I still have my original variant ps5, but the majority of my time is spent on the pc where I can play multiplayer for free, pay less for titles at launch and can jump in and out of gamepass when I want.
@Ravix I think it will do better ray tracing than the base ps5, but it definitely won’t come close to max raytracing in AAA titles. The supposed leaked specs on resetera put its gpu at about 50-60% faster than the base ps5. That would make it somewhere between an nvidia 4070 and an amd 7800xt. The 7800xt is probably a better benchmark with regards to the levels of ray tracing the ps5 could achieve given that amd provide Sony with their SoC. I have this card right now and its raytracing performance isn’t great at 1440p. In fact, it’s so lacklustre I don’t even bother enabling it in the majority of games. Nvidia are the world leaders in raytracing with their rtx dedicated hardware. If you want to max raytracing in something like cyberpunk or Alan wake 2 and want decent frame rates and resolution you’re looking at a 4080 minimum and preferably a 4090, both of which are pushing towards upwards of £1000. There’s no way you’ll be getting max raytracing on a ps5 pro as the hardware costs would make the product completely unviable for the console market.
Am I the only one that thinks this new iteration looks a bit cheap and kind of like something you'd find on wish. com?
My launch day ps5 definitely has a more premium aesthetic imo, I think the new vertical stand looks particularly crappy on this. Although I'm sure the looks will be irrelevant to the majority of buyers who will welcome a smaller console.
@Rafie I mean it's kind of irrelevant which platform it came to first, they're available on both PlayStation and Xbox right now and have been on Sony machines since 2020. There's plenty of people with PlayStation copies and no reason why the anniversary content couldn't also be on playstation to celebrate its 3rd year anniversary (a number equally as arbitrary as 6). Unless the content specifically contains the numbers 6 everywhere and has a new theme tune with the lyrics "6th anniversary edition content".
This is a little bit like all the extra content PlayStation users get in some games that pc and Xbox players miss out on. The most recent example I can think of was the additional hogwarts missions on Sony's machines. Basically paying the publisher to cut content from other platforms. It sucks both ways and is very anti-consumer - you're essentially paying the same price for an inferior product.
I got the plat for spiderman on ps5, but really couldn't get into miles morales - only managed about 3 hours. Not sure if I burnt myself out on Spiderman, but I'm not really that hyped for the new one. It looks like a more refined version of the original, but I'm not sure that's enough for me sadly
@Michael2008ish BG3 is amazing for what it is, arguably the best in class and a goty contender. It is a CRPG, if you don't like that genre it's no fault of the game.
@KaijuKaiser yes that's true, but you'd expect the first party stuff to be among the best content on the system. Especially given how well received the original was.
The vast majority of first party titles on playstation 5 are the arguably some of the best available to play. There's not a ton of first party developers working on things for psvr2 and most of the best games are ports from the quest 2 and more akin to indie titles in terms of budget and scope.
Call of the mountain made me incredibly ill even with all the comfort settings enabled, no man's sky looked a blurry mess imo and resident evil was a port of an existing game I'd already beaten.
The motion sickness was the biggest barrier to play for me, but even without that, there's not been any title to date that seems like a must play. I don't have any regrets about returning my psvr2.
I didn't get on with psvr2 - was hugely disappointed with the image quality and suffered severe motion sickness after a few minutes of play. Luckily I was able to return the headset for a full refund. Doesn't feel like I'm missing much based off of all the reviews for this game. Pretty disappointing for a first party title.
Maybe it would have sold better if square hadn't been greedy and signed an exclusivity agreement with Sony? What did they expect when it has only been available to buy on ps5? If you want to maximise sales you maximise your potential market, not restrict it.
@NEStalgia totally agree. This won't be an additional ps5, rather a replacement model which conveniently steers the consumer towards an all digital collection. Of course, the disc add on will be available to placate those that want to maintain physical purchases. But the base form of the ps5 moving forward will be digital only. It makes sense, from a business perspective, but it won't be of benefit to consumers and retailers of video games. Particularly as Sony has quite a strong grip over their digital marketplace and no longer sells game codes to retailers. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
For anyone concerned that Microsoft will continue their consolidation of gaming publishers following a successful acquisition of ActiBlizz, don't worry. If successful this will put the nail in the coffin of Microsoft's spending spree. Any future major purchase attempt won't make it past any competition watchdog.
Be more concerned if this deal doesn't go through, particularly if you don't care much for ActiBlizz titles. Microsoft will have $69 billion burning a proverbial hole in their pocket and will go after other publishers instead. Although this time, they might not hedge all their bets with one. I could see them going after cd projekt red and other similar sized studios, maybe also looking to some of the Japanese companies to round out their portfolio. Ubisoft could also become a possibility given that they have been the target of buyouts in the past. Denying this acquisition will just see Microsoft shift their attention to other targets.
@Rob_230 "they do not want Sony in the market" - can you point to any business that wants another company competing in the same market as themselves?
From an individual business perspective, the less competition the better - Sony would happily delete Microsoft and Nintendo if it were within their power to do so.
Competition only serves to benefit consumers, not individual businesses. Innovation, lower pricing, higher quality goods/services and more choice are all byproducts of competition, none of which are concerning to a business which only exists to maximise profit. Competition merely stifles company profits.
@Victor_Meldrew "as if Sony could afford that" - your words, not mine. Clearly, Sony could afford that as they've been doing an awful lot of AAA timed exclusivity deals for "negligible returns" this generation. Most recently - final fantasy 16, which is part of the biggest JRPG franchise in the world.
Also, some of these timed exclusivity deals are for console exclusivity. Keeping a game off a rival console but still allowing release on PC is cheaper than full timed exclusivity.
The reference to the bungie deal was to highlight the fact that Sony clearly aren't strapped for cash. They clearly believe in the value of timed exclusivity, and based on their prior dealings with Bethesda it doesn't seem improbable that they were looking to tie up starfield.
@Victor_Meldrew they bought bungie for $3.7 billion after Microsoft acquired Bethesda. I'm pretty sure they had the money for starfield timed exclusivity if they'd been given the opportunity
@SplooshDmg I think the reason FFVIIR hasn't seen a release on Xbox is that square enix have looked to tomb raider and decided that the 12 month window of exclusivity has made the title financially unviable on Xbox. Probably even more true given how unrealistic a sales target they give for their games.
Rise of the tomb raider had a year of exclusivity on Xbox one. It bombed when it launched 12 months later for $60 on ps4, despite having an 88 on metacritic (which, incidentally, is the same metacritic score as ff16). I don't think it sold any where near as well at launch on PlayStation as Xbox even though PS4 continued to outsell Xbox one.
Timed exclusivity still hurts sales and competition despite what some "experts" on this forum believe. There's a reason Sony has been investing heavily as of late in AAA titles to secure a 12 month exclusivity window. If you have Microsoft's money why wouldn't you attempt to block this practice with a buy out, especially given that Sony scored timed exclusivity with back-to-back Bethesda titles.
If everyone is looking to Microsoft's history as to why this deal shouldn't close, surely it also makes sense to look at Sony's history with Bethesda and assume that starfield would also have been time gated on Xbox?
@Sakai I know, that's why I mentioned both cloud and home console with regards to CMA and FTC. FTC latest statement points to home console market, while the CMA are only concerned with the cloud gaming market. Either way, they're both stating significant risks to competition should exclusivity be a component of the acquisition.
@TheArtfulDodger according to the FTC and CMA securing these titles as exclusives would significantly impact levels of competition. Therefore Microsoft would see significant hardware and software sales growth by virtue of such a deal. Yes, the first few years would probably see them incurring losses, but this would be offset in time by gaining monopoly level control of both the cloud gaming and home console markets (according to CMA and FTC). Gamepass has shown that Microsoft have no issue with taking big losses for long term gain. I'm sure $69 billion would secure an exclusivity window of sufficient length to force all competition to withdraw from the market.
Again, I make this point, based solely on the idea that both the CMA and FTC are correct in their appraisal of the ActiBlizz merger.
I find it slightly amusing that the FTC is concerned that after a decade CoD and other IPs could become exclusive and not appear on rival platforms. Yet, Microsoft could in theory say, f**k the deal, let's just pay from this moment onwards to make cod and any other ActiBlizz exclusive for the next 10 years using the money reserved for our acquisition. A perfectly legal and competitive practice that would immediately result in the very thing that the FTC are deeming hugely damaging to the market.
Obviously this won't happen, but Microsoft probably have the finances to bankroll it should they ever want to.
@XenonKnight I have a series X and a ps5 so I hope starfield will live up the the hype, but I'm still skeptical based on Microsoft and Bethesda's past showings. Either way, I should still have Spiderman 2 to look forward to in September, if release date rumours are true.
The console market is close to saturation point and people are more precious about time and it's value. I think developers and publisher's are finally starting to realise that there isn't room for a ton of GaaS and the difficulties in trying to launch and compete with the few that are already established and successful.
@XenonKnight not having redfall on ps5 is actually a good thing. It saved several uninformed PlayStation owners from losing $70 to one of the worst games of 2023.
@get2sammyb How can anyone know what happens to anything after 10 years? Who's to say call of duty will still be the juggernaut it is today? The only thing you can use to make predictions are past trends and data. Microsoft's track record for the last decade with regard to studio output has been abysmal when compared to it's competition. If the EU are basing their decision on what is most likely to happen should Microsoft acquire ActiBlizz, 10 years seems like plenty of time for the IP to be destroyed or at best significantly eroded.
@Chaudy yes, you've pretty much described the enthusiast market for games consoles, not the mass consumer market that actually drives profit and revenue. I have a friend who only plays cod and fifa. He bought a ps5 mostly because all his friends had PlayStation, he had ps plus paid for the next 8 months, previously owned a ps4 and wanted access to all his FIFA games and ultimate teams he'd spent money on. He also still enjoys playing black ops 4 multiplayer which he bought on PS4. He tried the uncharted series and only got a few hours into it before quitting, had the same experience with Spiderman and didn't fare much better with god of war. He's not a minority either - there's a reason cod, FIFA and madden manage to stay in the top 10 sales charts for the majority of the year while other titles fade in and out.
According to the head of PlayStation every single great exclusive Sony have created still isn't sufficient to allow them to continue competing in the console market should they ever lose access to call of duty. All the great new games you talk about really don't mean a thing with regard to the overall market and are only truly important to enthusiasts.
Well let's all just hope that Microsoft leave the console business behind them and that the majority of people in the comments can finally get what they've all been craving for so long - a Sony that is free from the constraints of competition!
(At which point I'll probably have switched over to gaming on PC where I can enjoy Sony's titles at reduced cost, higher fidelity and a resolution/frame rate of my choosing)
@Chaudy the digital libraries comment is true, not that people necessarily play those games again, but because they've invested value into them and by ditching that ecosystem they essentially lose that perceived value. The technology giants want people invested in their ecosystems because it helps create brand loyalty and customer retention with new products. Look at the numbers of people that invested in an iPod and bought music through iTunes that went on to get iPhones, iPads and apple music subscriptions, and continue to buy upgrades to those devices because they're invested in that ecosystem. My step mum has an iPad pro, the latest iPhone and an M2 MacBook having started with an iPod and ITunes. My dad has a Samsung Android smartphone and isn't bothered about apple, he's stuck with Samsung for years because it's what he's known and he's familiar with the ecosystem.
@ED_209 I had a month of ps plus extra last December and managed to pay £20 upgrade for Spiderman remastered thanks to miles morales registering as the owned ps5 copy with ps plus extra. Definitely worth the £20 as I hadn't played before and really dislike playing at 30fps. Also had all the dlc which was a nice addition to the base game.
Just curious if the CMA have also considered the fact that CoD might not remain the juggernaut it is today after 10 years? I remember when EA's medal of honor series was the premium first person military shooter and CoD was considered the Pro Evolution Soccer of the genre. Look at the state of Halo today Vs where it was in it's prime.
The data suggests that warzone 2.0 isn't enjoying the same levels of popularity as the first iteration, overwatch 2 definitely hasn't hit the heights of the original and warcraft is in decline. I'm sure diablo 4 will have a successful launch, but it remains to be seen whether or not it has any longevity.
Couple all of that with Microsoft's abysmal track record of studio management/output and I'd say it's just as likely that when all these 10 year deals expire, the current ActiBlizz IPs won't be anything like as big as they are currently. Some possibly might not even exist at all.
Also, with live service style titles like CoD, a decline in popularity and sales necessitates that you maximise potential sales by having your product in as many marketplaces as possible. You don't restrict access as you're just compounding the revenue loss.
@Intr1n5ic that's true, such titles can usually be played in a year or so on other platforms. I'll be playing final fantasy 16 on ps5 because timed exclusivity means it won't be coming to Xbox at launch, the information regarding exclusivity is also intentionally vague and merely states that it won't be coming to "other platforms" for at least 6 months. If it's coming to Xbox in 6-12 months I'll wait and buy it using my reward points rather than spend £70 on it. Obviously there's absolutely no clarity on this as Sony want you to buy it on ps5 rather than a rival platform. It's in the consumers interest to know the full details on exclusivity contracts and whether other platform versions are already being worked on. Are "other platforms" pc and Xbox or just pc? Is there currently any intention to bring the title to Xbox?
The same is completely true of Microsoft and their timed deals. Starfield is a confirmed exclusive now, but Microsoft went months dodging questions about launch platforms despite knowing internally exactly how things would play out. They were/are equally vague about which bethesda titles would/will be coming to PlayStation.
If Microsoft can no longer add to their studios and game catalogue with acquisitions, I could see them spending a lot more money on third party timed exclusivity and third party "day one gamepass" titles. Consolidation of publishers and titles is crap for the industry, but I think consolidation of titles through timed deals is also pretty crappy.
@Intr1n5ic my point wasn't directed at the possibility of Xbox doing that. It was highlighting the fact that the practice is harmful to both the consumer and in terms of competition (especially when using an extreme example), yet it's a persistent feature of the video game industry that has yet to be addressed. Also, as I stated before, I think it's crappy whenever Microsoft or Sony do it.
@RBMango or they could just take the $69 billion and invest it in tying up timed third party exclusives like Sony. They could probably buy up an entire year's worth of games for $69 billion leaving PlayStation with 2-3 games for 12 months - apparently that wouldn't harm competition and the consumer in any way. For the record, timed exclusivity is a crappy practice by both Microsoft and Sony and needs to die.
@thefourfoldroot1 I'm not saying it's irrational face saving, I'm saying that it's clearly an incredibly close decision that could be swayed one way or another, hence the amount of time it's taken to arrive at. Subjectivity is clearly a part of that process and blowback would definitely be a consideration at this point. There's no real negativity surrounding the prevention of a multinational mega corporation from completing a large merger Vs the blowback from allowing that merger to happen. Blocking it prevents anyone from being able to say, actually the merger was great and there were no competition issues as speculated and as can be seen 15 years down the line. Preventing something happening is a guaranteed win with regards to outcome because you're preventing being proven wrong. Surely the CMA should just block every acquisition they are required to investigate on the grounds that nothing can be guaranteed?
I'm fully aware that individual governments are appraising the deal with regards to their region, but from my understanding it's the cloud gaming aspect of this deal that appears to be the stumbling point, not PlayStation Vs Xbox. I would think that the cloud gaming landscapes between developed countries are far more similar than the physical market shares of Xbox and PlayStation consoles. Japan (your example) has one of the best internet infrastructures in the world and we've been told that Microsoft has something of a stranglehold on cloud gaming. Surely it should be even less likely that Japan would greenlight this deal given that their infrastructure is ideally suited to Microsoft's cloud product? Especially in a country where traditional console gaming has been in decline and portable gaming via mobile or switch has shown tremendous growth?
@thefourfoldroot1 it's not a reach to assume the people in positions of authority within the CMA could be under-fire for a perceived wrong decision. The CMA is still accountable. A failing government organisation obviously doesn't result in it being dissolved, but it does often result in job losses, particularly for those responsible in decision making.
Their decision making is sound, but there is still a level of subjectivity involved, hence why there have been differing views from other organisations. If the CMA are in the large minority with regard to their decision making, it is logical to assume the majority are correct.
@thefourfoldroot1 I think it quite likely that it is partly a marker point against big multinational corporations given the fact that the power of such companies has been under scrutiny for several years. Meta's acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram went unchallenged and many feel this was a miss, large multinationals have also been under fire for tax evasion and other questionable practices in the UK. This decision sends a message that the CMA is active and does act against large multinational corporations rather than if they were, again, to do nothing. It is in the CMAs personal interest to block this acquisition and justify their existence having received criticism in the past.
@thefourfoldroot1 I agree, but the fact that that as things stand, the UK CMA are the only authority to block the acquisition (US right to appeal seems likely to go through), the decision seems more like self motivated marker statement than an objective one. It will be interesting if the EU and US (right to appeal fails) follow suit and block, or if the UK are alone in their assessment (further lending credibility to the idea it is a decision influenced by non objective factors).
@thefourfoldroot1 they do today - netflix owned 100% of their market in the beginning too. Much like netflix, cloud gaming is still very much in its infancy, current market share is certainly unlikely to represent market share in 10 years or so. Predicting the impact of the ActiBlizz on a market this immature seems pointless when the current market is so more relevant to the discussion.
Amazing news for everyone here, fantastic that Sony will be able to maintain their 70/30 split of the premium home console market. Consumers win when Sony dominate... until they don't. There's a small possibility that Microsoft decide the home console market is no longer yielding sufficient returns and either close the Xbox division or sell it off. If that day happens Sony will inherit a monopoly and PlayStation consumers will get to enjoy all the benefits that come from having a singular entity controlling prices and output.
Whether people here like to admit it or not, most of Sony's consumer friendly decisions this generation have come as a result of Microsoft's actions and competition. Titles released on PC - Microsoft's doing, a subscription service offering similar features to gamepass - Microsoft's doing, crossplay - Microsoft's doing. Sony's market dominance means they were the first to increase game prices across the board, the first to increase hardware prices, the last to agree to crossplay, the last to give consumers the choice of EA access (which apparently didn't represent good value to players and Sony knew better than their player base).
You guys all celebrate Sony's continued dominance whilst completely oblivious to the long term implications this has for you as the consumer. When the Xbox 360 was wrecking the PS3 I was rooting for Sony to come back and kill it, which they did because they were getting hammered. As the consumer I benefitted hugely from this. I had an Xbox 360 and a PS3, but I wasn't cheering for the death of PlayStation and celebrating Microsoft's dominance. PS4 was amazing because of the Xbox 360, and Xbox one was abysmal because of the PS3.
Dominance is fine to a degree if the competition still believes there's something to fight for. You remove their ability to compete, they leave and you're left with a monopoly that will trash your hobby and wallet in a heartbeat.
I wasn't a huge fan of horizon: forbidden west when tried it on ps5 - the open world and story just didn't grab me. However the visuals on display, specifically, the detail of character models and animations/presentation during conversations with NPC's, really blew me away. This was made all the more impressive by the fact that the game was running at 60fps in performance mode. The decima engine is absolutely fantastic and I would welcome it's use in more titles from PlayStation studios.
@thefourfoldroot1 you made the comparison. They're not a completely different market, they're different segments of the same market. For the enthusiast they're very different, for the mass market consumer they're both seen as part of the same video game market.
@thefourfoldroot1 ford and McDonald's, Nintendo and PlayStation. Ford make cars, Macdonald's is a fast food restaurant franchise. Nintendo make video games and consoles, PlayStation make... video games and consoles. Comparing Nintendo and PlayStation is exactly like a comparison between ford and McDonald's? Or maybe I missed McDonald's recent announcment that they're selling off their food business and launching the McCar?
Extremely likely that a version of hi-fi rush was in development? Likely, yes, but not substantiated. The facts are that redfall was in development and pulled from ps5. Microsoft will have launched three Minecraft games on PlayStation platforms by April - base minecraft, Minecraft dungeons and Minecraft legends. Technically they have brought three more games to Playstation platforms. Again no confirmation that I can find anywhere that hi-fi rush was in development for PlayStation so it's still just conjecture.
As of today, hi-fi rush is the only exclusive from their Bethesda acquisition not available on PlayStation Vs 2 Minecraft games from their previous mojang studios acquisition. Technically, even correctly omitting ghost wire and deathloop, Microsoft have more games from acquisitions on PlayStation than they've made exclusive.
@ItsBritneyB_tch is paying for exclusive content, timed early access to beta content, xp boosts and marketing rights also a fair practice? Especially when other platforms are charged the same price for the end product with "missing" content? Didn't the spec ops from modern warfare have a 12 month timed exclusivity window on PlayStation? I'm pretty sure some of the zombies modes also had similar timed exclusivity.
"It might not be the only reason people buy a PS5 but it could be enough of a reason to make you reconsider and maybe purchase an Xbox instead - especially if your friends are thinking the same."
Doesn't your statement currently hold true for people considering buying an Xbox, but who also play a considerable amount of call of duty?
I'm not pretending Microsoft are innocent of pursuing similar practices, but let's not pretend Sony aren't guilty of underhand tactics.
@BranJ0 share the exact same sentiment. I enjoyed elden ring, but definitely preferred a more linear structured souls like. The repeated dungeons and bosses did detract from the open world and made the game seem bloated. Was also slightly disappointed that the combat hadn't really changed from the dark souls series - sekiro was absolutely amazing due to the complete overhaul and reimagining of the combat systems.
Really looking forward to playing a completely different game in the form of armored core. A departure from the souls games with new mechanics and combat sounds fantastic to me.
I have a PlayStation with a PlayStation plus extra sub and a series X with gamepass. I don't believe in paying £70 for games in much the same way Sony don't actually believe in generations. It sounds like the majority of people here don't like paying £70 for games either as there's a lot of comments taking issue with the fact that cod will likely be on gamepass.
The three year deal for cod on PlayStation is fine, after which it will be renegotiated and more than likely extended for a further three years. The live service game revenue model relies heavily on player numbers, PlayStation gamers make up a substantial share of the player base and will continue to do so. Cod will remain on a Sony machine for the foreseeable future. Nothing will change for the people that spend £70 on a new release every year.
You have nothing to fear from people jumping ship to Xbox because, according to everyone here, gamepass is crap and represents terrible value. The last thing any PlayStation gamer would want is the option to have gamepass appear on their console, let alone have to purchase an Xbox or gain access to it via streaming on hundreds of different devices. Everyone wants to pay £70 for new releases on their playstation and would always want ownership for their games*
*Unless of course they buy their games digitally, in which case they're actually just leasing a non transferable license
Comments 409
Re: Rumour: PS5 Pro Specs Could Leak Very Soon as Dev Kits Go Out to Studios
@Ravix yes that’s true. Console will always be better optimised than pc and devs will get more performance from the hardware than they would from the equivalent power on pc. Also, while Microsoft utilise directx based dev tools which are ubiquitous across pc and Xbox, Sony use their own bespoke dev software for playstation. Sony’s toolset always seems to be the most efficient in terms of performance output when compared Xbox. Will be interesting to see what the ps5 pro is capable of when it launches.
Yes, similarly to you, I wanted Sony or Microsoft to produce a bleeding edge system at whatever premium that cost. I eventually realised that this will never come to pass and decided to buy a pc this year. I want to guarantee that I can play every new release at 1440p native 60fps, which I now can. I’ll probably spend the ps5 pro cost on a gpu when it launches instead. If the nvidia 5070 is available at that time and affordable I’ll be buying that and enjoy greater performance coupled with 4th generation rtx features, frame generation and 5th generation dlss.
I still have my original variant ps5, but the majority of my time is spent on the pc where I can play multiplayer for free, pay less for titles at launch and can jump in and out of gamepass when I want.
I definitely don’t regret the switch.
Re: Rumour: PS5 Pro Specs Could Leak Very Soon as Dev Kits Go Out to Studios
@Ravix I think it will do better ray tracing than the base ps5, but it definitely won’t come close to max raytracing in AAA titles. The supposed leaked specs on resetera put its gpu at about 50-60% faster than the base ps5. That would make it somewhere between an nvidia 4070 and an amd 7800xt. The 7800xt is probably a better benchmark with regards to the levels of ray tracing the ps5 could achieve given that amd provide Sony with their SoC. I have this card right now and its raytracing performance isn’t great at 1440p. In fact, it’s so lacklustre I don’t even bother enabling it in the majority of games. Nvidia are the world leaders in raytracing with their rtx dedicated hardware. If you want to max raytracing in something like cyberpunk or Alan wake 2 and want decent frame rates and resolution you’re looking at a 4080 minimum and preferably a 4090, both of which are pushing towards upwards of £1000. There’s no way you’ll be getting max raytracing on a ps5 pro as the hardware costs would make the product completely unviable for the console market.
Re: PS5 Slim Officially Unveiled, Attachable Disc Drive, Launches November
Am I the only one that thinks this new iteration looks a bit cheap and kind of like something you'd find on wish. com?
My launch day ps5 definitely has a more premium aesthetic imo, I think the new vertical stand looks particularly crappy on this. Although I'm sure the looks will be irrelevant to the majority of buyers who will welcome a smaller console.
Re: Red Dead Redemption Remaster Update 1.03 Adds 60FPS Option
@Disharmonist it's a PS3 game, I'd be very disappointed if it couldn't run at 60fps on ps5 without any graphical downgrade.
Re: New Cuphead Update Skips PS4, Will Be Exclusive to Xbox, PC
@Rafie I mean it's kind of irrelevant which platform it came to first, they're available on both PlayStation and Xbox right now and have been on Sony machines since 2020. There's plenty of people with PlayStation copies and no reason why the anniversary content couldn't also be on playstation to celebrate its 3rd year anniversary (a number equally as arbitrary as 6). Unless the content specifically contains the numbers 6 everywhere and has a new theme tune with the lyrics "6th anniversary edition content".
Re: New Cuphead Update Skips PS4, Will Be Exclusive to Xbox, PC
This is a little bit like all the extra content PlayStation users get in some games that pc and Xbox players miss out on. The most recent example I can think of was the additional hogwarts missions on Sony's machines. Basically paying the publisher to cut content from other platforms. It sucks both ways and is very anti-consumer - you're essentially paying the same price for an inferior product.
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 Has Events Where You Encounter the Other Spidey Fighting Crime
I got the plat for spiderman on ps5, but really couldn't get into miles morales - only managed about 3 hours. Not sure if I burnt myself out on Spiderman, but I'm not really that hyped for the new one. It looks like a more refined version of the original, but I'm not sure that's enough for me sadly
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 2.0 Release Date Details Dropping Next Week
@Michael2008ish BG3 is amazing for what it is, arguably the best in class and a goty contender. It is a CRPG, if you don't like that genre it's no fault of the game.
Re: Firewall Ultra (PSVR2) - Flawed VR Shooter Misses the Mark
@KaijuKaiser yes that's true, but you'd expect the first party stuff to be among the best content on the system. Especially given how well received the original was.
The vast majority of first party titles on playstation 5 are the arguably some of the best available to play. There's not a ton of first party developers working on things for psvr2 and most of the best games are ports from the quest 2 and more akin to indie titles in terms of budget and scope.
Call of the mountain made me incredibly ill even with all the comfort settings enabled, no man's sky looked a blurry mess imo and resident evil was a port of an existing game I'd already beaten.
The motion sickness was the biggest barrier to play for me, but even without that, there's not been any title to date that seems like a must play. I don't have any regrets about returning my psvr2.
Re: Firewall Ultra (PSVR2) - Flawed VR Shooter Misses the Mark
I didn't get on with psvr2 - was hugely disappointed with the image quality and suffered severe motion sickness after a few minutes of play. Luckily I was able to return the headset for a full refund. Doesn't feel like I'm missing much based off of all the reviews for this game. Pretty disappointing for a first party title.
Re: Square Enix Bafflingly Backtracks on Final Fantasy 16 Sales, Blames 'Slow' PS5 Adoption
Maybe it would have sold better if square hadn't been greedy and signed an exclusivity agreement with Sony? What did they expect when it has only been available to buy on ps5? If you want to maximise sales you maximise your potential market, not restrict it.
Re: PlayStation's Skipping Gamescom, But It's Showing Up for ChinaJoy 2023
@Mikey856 don't worry, if there's a Russian games convention I'm sure Sony will be there too
Re: Even Microsoft Is Expecting a Revised PS5 Hardware Model This Year
@NEStalgia totally agree. This won't be an additional ps5, rather a replacement model which conveniently steers the consumer towards an all digital collection. Of course, the disc add on will be available to placate those that want to maintain physical purchases. But the base form of the ps5 moving forward will be digital only. It makes sense, from a business perspective, but it won't be of benefit to consumers and retailers of video games. Particularly as Sony has quite a strong grip over their digital marketplace and no longer sells game codes to retailers. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Re: The Last of Us 2 Cost $220 Million to Make, Horizon Forbidden West Cost $212 Million
For anyone concerned that Microsoft will continue their consolidation of gaming publishers following a successful acquisition of ActiBlizz, don't worry. If successful this will put the nail in the coffin of Microsoft's spending spree. Any future major purchase attempt won't make it past any competition watchdog.
Be more concerned if this deal doesn't go through, particularly if you don't care much for ActiBlizz titles. Microsoft will have $69 billion burning a proverbial hole in their pocket and will go after other publishers instead. Although this time, they might not hedge all their bets with one. I could see them going after cd projekt red and other similar sized studios, maybe also looking to some of the Japanese companies to round out their portfolio. Ubisoft could also become a possibility given that they have been the target of buyouts in the past. Denying this acquisition will just see Microsoft shift their attention to other targets.
Re: Microsoft's Potential Game Plan in 2020: 'Spend Sony Out of Business'
@Rob_230 "they do not want Sony in the market" - can you point to any business that wants another company competing in the same market as themselves?
From an individual business perspective, the less competition the better - Sony would happily delete Microsoft and Nintendo if it were within their power to do so.
Competition only serves to benefit consumers, not individual businesses. Innovation, lower pricing, higher quality goods/services and more choice are all byproducts of competition, none of which are concerning to a business which only exists to maximise profit. Competition merely stifles company profits.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
@Victor_Meldrew "as if Sony could afford that" - your words, not mine. Clearly, Sony could afford that as they've been doing an awful lot of AAA timed exclusivity deals for "negligible returns" this generation. Most recently - final fantasy 16, which is part of the biggest JRPG franchise in the world.
Also, some of these timed exclusivity deals are for console exclusivity. Keeping a game off a rival console but still allowing release on PC is cheaper than full timed exclusivity.
The reference to the bungie deal was to highlight the fact that Sony clearly aren't strapped for cash. They clearly believe in the value of timed exclusivity, and based on their prior dealings with Bethesda it doesn't seem improbable that they were looking to tie up starfield.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
@Victor_Meldrew they bought bungie for $3.7 billion after Microsoft acquired Bethesda. I'm pretty sure they had the money for starfield timed exclusivity if they'd been given the opportunity
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
@SplooshDmg I think the reason FFVIIR hasn't seen a release on Xbox is that square enix have looked to tomb raider and decided that the 12 month window of exclusivity has made the title financially unviable on Xbox. Probably even more true given how unrealistic a sales target they give for their games.
Re: Xbox Insinuates It Bought Bethesda to Block Starfield PS5 Console Exclusivity
Rise of the tomb raider had a year of exclusivity on Xbox one. It bombed when it launched 12 months later for $60 on ps4, despite having an 88 on metacritic (which, incidentally, is the same metacritic score as ff16). I don't think it sold any where near as well at launch on PlayStation as Xbox even though PS4 continued to outsell Xbox one.
Timed exclusivity still hurts sales and competition despite what some "experts" on this forum believe. There's a reason Sony has been investing heavily as of late in AAA titles to secure a 12 month exclusivity window. If you have Microsoft's money why wouldn't you attempt to block this practice with a buy out, especially given that Sony scored timed exclusivity with back-to-back Bethesda titles.
If everyone is looking to Microsoft's history as to why this deal shouldn't close, surely it also makes sense to look at Sony's history with Bethesda and assume that starfield would also have been time gated on Xbox?
Re: Starfield, Redfall Exclusivity 'Powerful Evidence' Against Xbox's Activision Buyout, Claims FTC
@Sakai I know, that's why I mentioned both cloud and home console with regards to CMA and FTC. FTC latest statement points to home console market, while the CMA are only concerned with the cloud gaming market. Either way, they're both stating significant risks to competition should exclusivity be a component of the acquisition.
Re: Starfield, Redfall Exclusivity 'Powerful Evidence' Against Xbox's Activision Buyout, Claims FTC
@TheArtfulDodger according to the FTC and CMA securing these titles as exclusives would significantly impact levels of competition. Therefore Microsoft would see significant hardware and software sales growth by virtue of such a deal. Yes, the first few years would probably see them incurring losses, but this would be offset in time by gaining monopoly level control of both the cloud gaming and home console markets (according to CMA and FTC). Gamepass has shown that Microsoft have no issue with taking big losses for long term gain. I'm sure $69 billion would secure an exclusivity window of sufficient length to force all competition to withdraw from the market.
Again, I make this point, based solely on the idea that both the CMA and FTC are correct in their appraisal of the ActiBlizz merger.
Re: Starfield, Redfall Exclusivity 'Powerful Evidence' Against Xbox's Activision Buyout, Claims FTC
I find it slightly amusing that the FTC is concerned that after a decade CoD and other IPs could become exclusive and not appear on rival platforms. Yet, Microsoft could in theory say, f**k the deal, let's just pay from this moment onwards to make cod and any other ActiBlizz exclusive for the next 10 years using the money reserved for our acquisition. A perfectly legal and competitive practice that would immediately result in the very thing that the FTC are deeming hugely damaging to the market.
Obviously this won't happen, but Microsoft probably have the finances to bankroll it should they ever want to.
Re: Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Deal Approved by the EU Commission
@XenonKnight I have a series X and a ps5 so I hope starfield will live up the the hype, but I'm still skeptical based on Microsoft and Bethesda's past showings. Either way, I should still have Spiderman 2 to look forward to in September, if release date rumours are true.
Re: Another Game as a Service on PS5 Is Being Abandoned
The console market is close to saturation point and people are more precious about time and it's value. I think developers and publisher's are finally starting to realise that there isn't room for a ton of GaaS and the difficulties in trying to launch and compete with the few that are already established and successful.
Re: Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Deal Approved by the EU Commission
@XenonKnight not having redfall on ps5 is actually a good thing. It saved several uninformed PlayStation owners from losing $70 to one of the worst games of 2023.
Re: Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Deal Approved by the EU Commission
@WaffleDee Microsoft successfully "out-bribed" Sony 😉
Re: Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Deal Approved by the EU Commission
@get2sammyb How can anyone know what happens to anything after 10 years? Who's to say call of duty will still be the juggernaut it is today? The only thing you can use to make predictions are past trends and data. Microsoft's track record for the last decade with regard to studio output has been abysmal when compared to it's competition. If the EU are basing their decision on what is most likely to happen should Microsoft acquire ActiBlizz, 10 years seems like plenty of time for the IP to be destroyed or at best significantly eroded.
Re: Xbox Boss Admits Microsoft Can't 'Outconsole' PS5
@Chaudy yes, you've pretty much described the enthusiast market for games consoles, not the mass consumer market that actually drives profit and revenue. I have a friend who only plays cod and fifa. He bought a ps5 mostly because all his friends had PlayStation, he had ps plus paid for the next 8 months, previously owned a ps4 and wanted access to all his FIFA games and ultimate teams he'd spent money on. He also still enjoys playing black ops 4 multiplayer which he bought on PS4. He tried the uncharted series and only got a few hours into it before quitting, had the same experience with Spiderman and didn't fare much better with god of war. He's not a minority either - there's a reason cod, FIFA and madden manage to stay in the top 10 sales charts for the majority of the year while other titles fade in and out.
According to the head of PlayStation every single great exclusive Sony have created still isn't sufficient to allow them to continue competing in the console market should they ever lose access to call of duty. All the great new games you talk about really don't mean a thing with regard to the overall market and are only truly important to enthusiasts.
Re: Xbox Boss Admits Microsoft Can't 'Outconsole' PS5
Well let's all just hope that Microsoft leave the console business behind them and that the majority of people in the comments can finally get what they've all been craving for so long - a Sony that is free from the constraints of competition!
(At which point I'll probably have switched over to gaming on PC where I can enjoy Sony's titles at reduced cost, higher fidelity and a resolution/frame rate of my choosing)
Re: Xbox Boss Admits Microsoft Can't 'Outconsole' PS5
@Chaudy the digital libraries comment is true, not that people necessarily play those games again, but because they've invested value into them and by ditching that ecosystem they essentially lose that perceived value. The technology giants want people invested in their ecosystems because it helps create brand loyalty and customer retention with new products. Look at the numbers of people that invested in an iPod and bought music through iTunes that went on to get iPhones, iPads and apple music subscriptions, and continue to buy upgrades to those devices because they're invested in that ecosystem. My step mum has an iPad pro, the latest iPhone and an M2 MacBook having started with an iPod and ITunes. My dad has a Samsung Android smartphone and isn't bothered about apple, he's stuck with Samsung for years because it's what he's known and he's familiar with the ecosystem.
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered Finally Gets Standalone Release on PS5
@ED_209 I had a month of ps plus extra last December and managed to pay £20 upgrade for Spiderman remastered thanks to miles morales registering as the owned ps5 copy with ps plus extra. Definitely worth the £20 as I hadn't played before and really dislike playing at 30fps. Also had all the dlc which was a nice addition to the base game.
Re: Activision Blizzard's Player Numbers Have Taken a Tumble
Just curious if the CMA have also considered the fact that CoD might not remain the juggernaut it is today after 10 years? I remember when EA's medal of honor series was the premium first person military shooter and CoD was considered the Pro Evolution Soccer of the genre. Look at the state of Halo today Vs where it was in it's prime.
The data suggests that warzone 2.0 isn't enjoying the same levels of popularity as the first iteration, overwatch 2 definitely hasn't hit the heights of the original and warcraft is in decline. I'm sure diablo 4 will have a successful launch, but it remains to be seen whether or not it has any longevity.
Couple all of that with Microsoft's abysmal track record of studio management/output and I'd say it's just as likely that when all these 10 year deals expire, the current ActiBlizz IPs won't be anything like as big as they are currently. Some possibly might not even exist at all.
Also, with live service style titles like CoD, a decline in popularity and sales necessitates that you maximise potential sales by having your product in as many marketplaces as possible. You don't restrict access as you're just compounding the revenue loss.
Re: Microsoft Goes Scorched Earth Over UK's Activision Buyout Block
@Intr1n5ic that's true, such titles can usually be played in a year or so on other platforms. I'll be playing final fantasy 16 on ps5 because timed exclusivity means it won't be coming to Xbox at launch, the information regarding exclusivity is also intentionally vague and merely states that it won't be coming to "other platforms" for at least 6 months. If it's coming to Xbox in 6-12 months I'll wait and buy it using my reward points rather than spend £70 on it. Obviously there's absolutely no clarity on this as Sony want you to buy it on ps5 rather than a rival platform. It's in the consumers interest to know the full details on exclusivity contracts and whether other platform versions are already being worked on. Are "other platforms" pc and Xbox or just pc? Is there currently any intention to bring the title to Xbox?
The same is completely true of Microsoft and their timed deals. Starfield is a confirmed exclusive now, but Microsoft went months dodging questions about launch platforms despite knowing internally exactly how things would play out. They were/are equally vague about which bethesda titles would/will be coming to PlayStation.
If Microsoft can no longer add to their studios and game catalogue with acquisitions, I could see them spending a lot more money on third party timed exclusivity and third party "day one gamepass" titles. Consolidation of publishers and titles is crap for the industry, but I think consolidation of titles through timed deals is also pretty crappy.
Re: Microsoft Goes Scorched Earth Over UK's Activision Buyout Block
@Intr1n5ic my point wasn't directed at the possibility of Xbox doing that. It was highlighting the fact that the practice is harmful to both the consumer and in terms of competition (especially when using an extreme example), yet it's a persistent feature of the video game industry that has yet to be addressed. Also, as I stated before, I think it's crappy whenever Microsoft or Sony do it.
Re: Microsoft Goes Scorched Earth Over UK's Activision Buyout Block
@Intr1n5ic they already have an entire year's worth of games on timed exclusivity? My bad, I didn't realise
Re: Microsoft Goes Scorched Earth Over UK's Activision Buyout Block
@RBMango or they could just take the $69 billion and invest it in tying up timed third party exclusives like Sony. They could probably buy up an entire year's worth of games for $69 billion leaving PlayStation with 2-3 games for 12 months - apparently that wouldn't harm competition and the consumer in any way. For the record, timed exclusivity is a crappy practice by both Microsoft and Sony and needs to die.
Re: Microsoft Dealt Major Blow as UK Blocks Activision Buyout
@thefourfoldroot1 I'm not saying it's irrational face saving, I'm saying that it's clearly an incredibly close decision that could be swayed one way or another, hence the amount of time it's taken to arrive at. Subjectivity is clearly a part of that process and blowback would definitely be a consideration at this point. There's no real negativity surrounding the prevention of a multinational mega corporation from completing a large merger Vs the blowback from allowing that merger to happen. Blocking it prevents anyone from being able to say, actually the merger was great and there were no competition issues as speculated and as can be seen 15 years down the line. Preventing something happening is a guaranteed win with regards to outcome because you're preventing being proven wrong. Surely the CMA should just block every acquisition they are required to investigate on the grounds that nothing can be guaranteed?
I'm fully aware that individual governments are appraising the deal with regards to their region, but from my understanding it's the cloud gaming aspect of this deal that appears to be the stumbling point, not PlayStation Vs Xbox. I would think that the cloud gaming landscapes between developed countries are far more similar than the physical market shares of Xbox and PlayStation consoles. Japan (your example) has one of the best internet infrastructures in the world and we've been told that Microsoft has something of a stranglehold on cloud gaming. Surely it should be even less likely that Japan would greenlight this deal given that their infrastructure is ideally suited to Microsoft's cloud product? Especially in a country where traditional console gaming has been in decline and portable gaming via mobile or switch has shown tremendous growth?
Re: Microsoft Dealt Major Blow as UK Blocks Activision Buyout
@thefourfoldroot1 it's not a reach to assume the people in positions of authority within the CMA could be under-fire for a perceived wrong decision. The CMA is still accountable. A failing government organisation obviously doesn't result in it being dissolved, but it does often result in job losses, particularly for those responsible in decision making.
Their decision making is sound, but there is still a level of subjectivity involved, hence why there have been differing views from other organisations. If the CMA are in the large minority with regard to their decision making, it is logical to assume the majority are correct.
Re: Microsoft Dealt Major Blow as UK Blocks Activision Buyout
@thefourfoldroot1 I think it quite likely that it is partly a marker point against big multinational corporations given the fact that the power of such companies has been under scrutiny for several years. Meta's acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram went unchallenged and many feel this was a miss, large multinationals have also been under fire for tax evasion and other questionable practices in the UK. This decision sends a message that the CMA is active and does act against large multinational corporations rather than if they were, again, to do nothing. It is in the CMAs personal interest to block this acquisition and justify their existence having received criticism in the past.
Re: Microsoft Dealt Major Blow as UK Blocks Activision Buyout
@thefourfoldroot1 I agree, but the fact that that as things stand, the UK CMA are the only authority to block the acquisition (US right to appeal seems likely to go through), the decision seems more like self motivated marker statement than an objective one. It will be interesting if the EU and US (right to appeal fails) follow suit and block, or if the UK are alone in their assessment (further lending credibility to the idea it is a decision influenced by non objective factors).
Re: Microsoft Dealt Major Blow as UK Blocks Activision Buyout
@thefourfoldroot1 they do today - netflix owned 100% of their market in the beginning too. Much like netflix, cloud gaming is still very much in its infancy, current market share is certainly unlikely to represent market share in 10 years or so. Predicting the impact of the ActiBlizz on a market this immature seems pointless when the current market is so more relevant to the discussion.
Re: Microsoft Dealt Major Blow as UK Blocks Activision Buyout
Amazing news for everyone here, fantastic that Sony will be able to maintain their 70/30 split of the premium home console market. Consumers win when Sony dominate... until they don't. There's a small possibility that Microsoft decide the home console market is no longer yielding sufficient returns and either close the Xbox division or sell it off. If that day happens Sony will inherit a monopoly and PlayStation consumers will get to enjoy all the benefits that come from having a singular entity controlling prices and output.
Whether people here like to admit it or not, most of Sony's consumer friendly decisions this generation have come as a result of Microsoft's actions and competition. Titles released on PC - Microsoft's doing, a subscription service offering similar features to gamepass - Microsoft's doing, crossplay - Microsoft's doing. Sony's market dominance means they were the first to increase game prices across the board, the first to increase hardware prices, the last to agree to crossplay, the last to give consumers the choice of EA access (which apparently didn't represent good value to players and Sony knew better than their player base).
You guys all celebrate Sony's continued dominance whilst completely oblivious to the long term implications this has for you as the consumer. When the Xbox 360 was wrecking the PS3 I was rooting for Sony to come back and kill it, which they did because they were getting hammered. As the consumer I benefitted hugely from this. I had an Xbox 360 and a PS3, but I wasn't cheering for the death of PlayStation and celebrating Microsoft's dominance. PS4 was amazing because of the Xbox 360, and Xbox one was abysmal because of the PS3.
Dominance is fine to a degree if the competition still believes there's something to fight for. You remove their ability to compete, they leave and you're left with a monopoly that will trash your hobby and wallet in a heartbeat.
Be careful what you wish for people.
Re: Sounds Like PlayStation Has Grand Plans for Guerrilla's 'Ambitious' Decima Engine
I wasn't a huge fan of horizon: forbidden west when tried it on ps5 - the open world and story just didn't grab me. However the visuals on display, specifically, the detail of character models and animations/presentation during conversations with NPC's, really blew me away. This was made all the more impressive by the fact that the game was running at 60fps in performance mode. The decima engine is absolutely fantastic and I would welcome it's use in more titles from PlayStation studios.
Re: UK Regulator No Longer Concerned About Activision Buyout's Impact on Console Competition
@thefourfoldroot1 you made the comparison. They're not a completely different market, they're different segments of the same market. For the enthusiast they're very different, for the mass market consumer they're both seen as part of the same video game market.
Re: UK Regulator No Longer Concerned About Activision Buyout's Impact on Console Competition
@thefourfoldroot1 ford and McDonald's, Nintendo and PlayStation. Ford make cars, Macdonald's is a fast food restaurant franchise. Nintendo make video games and consoles, PlayStation make... video games and consoles. Comparing Nintendo and PlayStation is exactly like a comparison between ford and McDonald's? Or maybe I missed McDonald's recent announcment that they're selling off their food business and launching the McCar?
Re: Microsoft Thinks It Hasn't 'Pulled Any Games' from PS5, PS4
Extremely likely that a version of hi-fi rush was in development? Likely, yes, but not substantiated. The facts are that redfall was in development and pulled from ps5. Microsoft will have launched three Minecraft games on PlayStation platforms by April - base minecraft, Minecraft dungeons and Minecraft legends. Technically they have brought three more games to Playstation platforms. Again no confirmation that I can find anywhere that hi-fi rush was in development for PlayStation so it's still just conjecture.
As of today, hi-fi rush is the only exclusive from their Bethesda acquisition not available on PlayStation Vs 2 Minecraft games from their previous mojang studios acquisition. Technically, even correctly omitting ghost wire and deathloop, Microsoft have more games from acquisitions on PlayStation than they've made exclusive.
Re: Call of Duty Is the Main Reason People Buy PS5, PS4, Says New Survey
@ItsBritneyB_tch is paying for exclusive content, timed early access to beta content, xp boosts and marketing rights also a fair practice? Especially when other platforms are charged the same price for the end product with "missing" content? Didn't the spec ops from modern warfare have a 12 month timed exclusivity window on PlayStation? I'm pretty sure some of the zombies modes also had similar timed exclusivity.
"It might not be the only reason people buy a PS5 but it could be enough of a reason to make you reconsider and maybe purchase an Xbox instead - especially if your friends are thinking the same."
Doesn't your statement currently hold true for people considering buying an Xbox, but who also play a considerable amount of call of duty?
I'm not pretending Microsoft are innocent of pursuing similar practices, but let's not pretend Sony aren't guilty of underhand tactics.
Re: Armored Core 6 Won't Adopt Elden Ring, Bloodborne Style Gameplay
@BranJ0 share the exact same sentiment. I enjoyed elden ring, but definitely preferred a more linear structured souls like. The repeated dungeons and bosses did detract from the open world and made the game seem bloated. Was also slightly disappointed that the combat hadn't really changed from the dark souls series - sekiro was absolutely amazing due to the complete overhaul and reimagining of the combat systems.
Really looking forward to playing a completely different game in the form of armored core. A departure from the souls games with new mechanics and combat sounds fantastic to me.
Re: Shocking: Sony Doesn't Want Game Pass on PlayStation, Microsoft Has a Pop at PS Plus
I have a PlayStation with a PlayStation plus extra sub and a series X with gamepass. I don't believe in paying £70 for games in much the same way Sony don't actually believe in generations. It sounds like the majority of people here don't like paying £70 for games either as there's a lot of comments taking issue with the fact that cod will likely be on gamepass.
The three year deal for cod on PlayStation is fine, after which it will be renegotiated and more than likely extended for a further three years. The live service game revenue model relies heavily on player numbers, PlayStation gamers make up a substantial share of the player base and will continue to do so. Cod will remain on a Sony machine for the foreseeable future. Nothing will change for the people that spend £70 on a new release every year.
You have nothing to fear from people jumping ship to Xbox because, according to everyone here, gamepass is crap and represents terrible value. The last thing any PlayStation gamer would want is the option to have gamepass appear on their console, let alone have to purchase an Xbox or gain access to it via streaming on hundreds of different devices. Everyone wants to pay £70 for new releases on their playstation and would always want ownership for their games*
*Unless of course they buy their games digitally, in which case they're actually just leasing a non transferable license
Re: Shocking: Sony Doesn't Want Game Pass on PlayStation, Microsoft Has a Pop at PS Plus
@Torque must be nice not to have to worry about a mortgage with rising interest rates, utility bills and inflation in today's financial climate