See, I just like having all games, so I tend to have all consoles. Even if you could argue PlayStation has the most balance between 1st and 3rd party releases, I couldn't imagine missing out on Mario, Zelda, or Halo (PlayStation faithful have one upcoming Halo, meanwhile I grew up with the series) just because I thought any one manufacturer offered the best console experience.
I wouldn't assume it won't best it just yet. 6 million units in 2-3 years of being the "budget" Switch is more than doable. Even though the focus is Switch 2, I don't think its predecessor is going anywhere for a while.
@Ludacritz That's an oddly spiteful and weird thing to do... Weirder yet because I wouldn't know or care, so all you'd be doing is launching a proxy war against a beloved game and darling developer. It's probably just a joke though. Which I guess is...less weird...?
Anyway, I'm just saying you should give a good game another chance. If you don't — whatever. It's your loss.
@_Nightsever_ I feel like there's some misunderstands happening here. I'm not saying PS+ isn't worth it. Quite the contrary; I'm saying it's so worth it, they don't need to gatekeep multiplayer to have a successful subscription.
And all these comparisons between the big 3's offerings is irrelevant to me. I'm not saying NSO is better than PS+ or GP just because I pay for it. I think all of these are compelling services — Nintendo's is the worst, I just happen to value its offerings for its price. But they're all s***ty in the sense that they gatekeep online play.
I don't know how much of an issue it really is, I just remember hearing murmurs about it years ago. But PlayStation adopting an alike policy would only, I imagine, exacerbate things. Maybe if developers can petition marketplaces to decrease the playtime barrier to 45 minutes instead of 2 hours based on budget and game length.
But I still much prefer a demo requirement. Maybe with a refund guarantee if that demo is demonstrably not representative of the final product.
@Oram77 I feel like this creates a lot of difficulties for developers. Sort of like how YouTubers are incentivized to make longer videos, suddenly game developers would have to basically start all games with 2-hour long demos that tease and entice gamers into not refunding.
I'm all for putting more power into the hands of gamers, but I'd rather not do that at the expense of developers. Maybe a better implementation of your concept would just be a mandatory demo. That way, developers would have control over how gamers preview their game. And it wouldn't create a whole purchase/refund stat to muddle sales.
@Ludacritz Go back and play Psychonauts 2. Getting stuck in some terrain and losing less than 10 minutes of progress is no reason to entirely drop a game. Much less a phenomenal GotY contender like Psychonauts 2.
For what it's worth, I don't recall getting stuck in any terrain throughout my playthrough. But, even still, you should probably reevaluate your standards if a slight lack of polish dissuades your attempts to play a game.
While I think subbers complain far too much about their random games service, these numbers wouldn't prove anything to any one. It's a fun little exercise — crunching the numbers — but an average of several averages comprised of 10-200 arbitrary numerical values isn't going to make anyone happier with a batch of games they don't connect with.
@_Nightsever_
1. That's all fine and good. But if I'm paying to buy a game, I should have access to the full experience. You're basically saying being a patient, savvy consumer justifies companies paywalling essential features.
2. The budget releases are kinda nice in this respect. It would make more sense if, for something like Battlefield 6, the single-player and multiplayer experiences were different purchases. Say $30 for SP, and $40 for MP. That would be cool. But, regardless, lower prices doesn't change the fact that we're stripping a game's functionality and hiding it behind subscription services. Helldivers 2 is essentially worthless without a PS+ sub, and that's a little scummy.
3. I'm not too bothered by Sony and Microsoft charging for multiplayer in the past. I mean, it's still lame, and I think that any game with multiplayer as its main selling point should have circumvented the sub requirement. But I understand that, back then, it didn't really make sense for either of them to build a comprehensive multiplayer infrastructure without financial inventive.
But that was back then; nowadays, Xbox Live and PSN have grown into a full-ass suite of services and perks. They don't sell themselves on online play — they don't need to. So why do gamers uninterested in their features get denied full-functionality for the games they outright buy? Also, unlike then, now half of games are made either exclusively for online play or primarily for it. And multiplayer on PC has exploded in popularity, and has remained entirely free. There are less and less reasons to gatekeep online multiplayer.
Even the whole, "they charge to uphold quality," argument feels moot at this point. It really always felt moot, as I doubt charging for online play would've made Sony's unprecedented 2011 hack fallout any less severe. Cybersecurity isn't really a problem you can solve by just throwing money at it. But, ignoring that, they can still make enough money to support their online efforts through all their service's benefits and perks. I'm sure the majority of people on this site would stay subbed to PS+ if they made online free, as I'm sure the majority of GamePass subscribers don't sub for access to online play. NSO is the only one I subscribe to, and that's mostly because of Nintendo Music and Nintendo Classics; even an objectively worse service offers enough to be worthwhile divorced from multiplayer access.
@Rich33 I did say "preferably, completely opening up their ecosystems," and further explored what I meant by that with LogicStrikesAgain.
I'm not advocating for PlayStation specifically dying. Though, I also question if making online multiplayer free on their console would even kill the brand (they could just, like, make cheaper consoles if they're that dependent on PS+ to make hardware profitable). And wasn't even picturing a market with only PCs and Nintendo consoles when I wrote that comment. But, ya know...I wouldn't mind that much, either. If PCs got every game besides Nintendo's, and Nintendo kept making hardware with notable features that differentiates itself from a PC, I would be fine with that.
I think in a specific market, you would be correct. In the specific market I'm picturing, where 'consoles' are just glorified set-spec PCs that can be made by any manufacturer and software clients are able to differentiate themselves and garner unique feature-sets and support, I'm correct.
It depends on a lot of variables. I do think my vision is closer to how it would pan out, though. Already, on PCs, there's Steam, EGS, and GoG. All of them basically do the same thing, and Steam is the clear market leader, but they've all carved out some kinda niche appeal for themselves. Say Microsoft's client is all about GamePass integration, Nintendo's focuses on retro console emulation, and PlayStation does some other third thing. There is reason to believe they could all co-exist. Not to mention, they could technically still have exclusives within their clients — 1st-party or otherwise. I'm really talking about hardware exclusivity, not exclusivity as a concept.
On the hardware front, it'd be just like the portable PC market right now: everyone can make a console that has access to every client and every game. Gamers would just buy whichever one best suits them. Power can play a huge role in it. Something like the Switch's hybrid capabilities could still be a HUGE appeal. Like, literally, just imagine all the consoles we have now, except Mario's on PlayStation, Gravity Rush is on Switch, and every one has full access to Steam. I think such a market is entirely feasible, and might actually be more pro-consumer in the end. Personally, I would love just owning one console that plays everything I want with the only limitation being its power. That also might be better for the majority of developers, as they won't have to optimize for several SKUs and would have more bargaining power when it comes to licensing expenses.
In your defense in regards to Netflix, I did realize immediately after that last comment that they do practice vertical integration (production and distribution), and, in fact, their vertical integration practically mirrors the oligopoly of Old Hollywood I referenced. I still don't think it's a great comparison to gaming's console manufacturers (production/distribution vs. product distribution/means of using product distribution.../production? — wait, maybe I'm wrong... Or maybe all this behavior is trending towards monopolistic...). Well, regardless, it's always a little murky comparing markets to markets in any but the most vague ways. Cable companies used to co-exist despite offering 99% of the same content. It really just came down to price, availability, and features. Does that tell us the streaming market or game market can stay competitive without exclusivity? Dunno, really; all of these markets function very differently.
@_Nightsever_ My Battlefield comment is referring to the multiplayer aspect itself. For a game that predominantly sells itself for its massive online battles, it's a shame its main value is locked behind paywalls for console players. Especially considering it's a $70 game to begin with.
I don't actually care much about skins (or — gasp — Mega Evolutions) being locked behind paywalls, per se. But to lose a significant amount of the game's function because you don't pay $100-200 annually is, I think, ridiculous.
@Rich33 Why would it matter if they aren't making consoles if they are still making games?
I don't really see what the misunderstanding was. You're saying that, if Sony were to eliminate several of their revenue streams, they could no longer justify producing consoles and would focus on software. I'm questioning why them not producing consoles would be a bad thing. Unless you're tacitly implying this would affect their software output, I don't see the disparity. I'm trying to offer the perspective that most people wouldn't be too miffed by such an outcome.
@LogicStrikesAgain It was two phrases and one sentence in all caps among 2 long paragraphs written normally. I mostly intended the all-caps for comedic affect. If that wasn't apparent, that's on me.
But I don't really see the point in this response if you're not going to engage with anything besides the caps. They're easy to ignore, as they only augment repetitious emphasis and unsubstantial vitriol.
The Netflix analogy doesn't make sense, was my point. This is about the dynamisms between hardware and software, basically vertical integration, and the possibility of monopolization thereof. Netflix does not have any comparable vertical integration, so alluding to them and the streaming wars as evidence of the necessity of branded hardware doesn't really make sense. It also ignores that the high-competition of the streaming wars is fairly anti-consumer, in its own right.
And, frankly, I'm not emotionally invested. I'm very bored, at a very boring job, and am procrastinating utilizing this boring time to do actual things I could otherwise be doing with no immediate work and access to a computer. Which I guess is still pretty lame of me... Really, I'm just not adjusting to suddenly being bored at work for extended periods of time very well.
@LogicStrikesAgain Most people seem to baselessly assume PS+ significantly subsidizes hardware costs, you mean.
Given that GamePass, PS+, Xbox Series consoles, PS5 models, and Nintendo's Switch family have all seen price increases as of late, it's a little hard to see the sub models actively keeping the price of hardware down. Unless they would, otherwise, see a minimum of $200 price increases. Also worth mentioning that the Nintendo Switch, and presumably the Switch 2, are sold at a profit, yet Nintendo's still charging for NSO. Almost like it's another revenue source, or something.
As for the dystopic future comment: the competition is in selling games. You know, back in the day, movie theaters were actually owned my production studios. It was not a boon for competition within the movie industry, to say the least. If there were no exclusives, Mario, Master Chief, and Aloy would be vying for the attention of the same player-base — there's your competition. The big three could still be making hardware, it's just they wouldn't be sold on the merits of software — so there would still be competition in that respect. And, if console ecosystems weren't limited to a single manufacturer, technically anyone could make a spiritual Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo — MORE COMPETITION. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! Netflix is not solely available on Netflix's hardware. It is software that you can access on 90% of applicable hardware. If PSN was similar — i.e. not tied to hardware — it would still exist in a competitive space. Heck, then Steam would actually have worthwhile competition — MOAR COMPETITION.
@Bez87 I don't see how this point is relevant. For one, I don't personally pay for either PS+ or GamePass, but would buy and play multiplayer games on both platforms if they didn't stupidly require subscriptions. This is really the only reason I've yet to play darlings like Helldivers 2. So, already, I'm evidence of a gamer where the price of online multiplayer matters and the service itself isn't a foregone conclusion of the holistic offerings.
But, more importantly, how is this supposed to make anyone swindled into regular payments for a basic feature that's free elsewhere feel any better about being swindled? How many people do you think sub just for multiplayer access and rarely, if ever, engage with the service's other offerings? Is it fair to them that they have to pay an extra subscription on top of a game's price of admission just to access its full suite of content?
@Rich33 How's that even a bad scenario? I'm a console gamer, and I like having consoles. But Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all becoming 3rd-party publishers — or, maybe preferably, completely opening up their ecosystems — is not some dystopic gaming future. It's basically the best case scenario for this industry, where everyone can play everything with everyone else, and the biggest names in the industry have to focus on software first and foremost.
@_Nightsever_ Well, see, the thing is, if there are a compelling amount of benefits and perks to these services to the point, for instance, where people on PC would subscribe to GamePass for PC despite not needing it for online multiplayer, it makes significantly less sense that such an essential feature of modern consoles would be locked behind a paywall in the first place.
No one is saying to completely kill PS+, GamePass, or NSO. We're just questioning why we have to pay for a bunch of extra features we might not want just to gain access to 60% of Battlefield 6's content.
@LifeGirl Sounds like a pretty baseless suspicion. It's more likely that people calling for multiplayer on PlayStation to be free remember when it was free, and didn't find the service to be significantly worse in any way. Or, you know, are aware of how free and functional online multiplayer is on PCs.
Also not much reason to believe the infant PSN wouldn't have been down for a month post-hack in 2011 had it been a charged service. It's not like 10+ years of paid PSN has been free of outages. Or that they haven't been hacked. Plus that whole thing with AWS just happened, and that's an incredibly profitable venture.
@DarkTron I would argue, from the perspective of gamers, that isn't actually an important point.
If you just want to give Microsoft ethic-brownies for such a pro-consumer move, sure. It should definitely be noted they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and are instead trying to craft compelling hardware in a somewhat different space with its own norms.
But arguing which multi-million dollar company is more ethical is for fanboys and overzealous enthusiasts. To the average gamer, the 'why' doesn't matter. All that matters is how it affects them.
@UltimateOtaku91 But Nintendo isn't much of a competitor when it comes to these loyalty subscriptions. Hence why Nintendo's offerings are a fraction of the price; Nintendo themselves know they can't really compete with GamePass and PS+.
For the gamer that predominantly plays online games and hasn't bothered to get into PCs — i.e., what I'm convinced are half of the PS5's userbase — the neXt-box having free online multiplayer would be a big deal. It would, hence, be a big deal for Sony to match that feature. Otherwise they might risk losing a great deal of market share.
Very surprised how many people here have justified the needless costs of online multiplayer with some ill-conceived pretense.
PlayStation Plus offers enough perks to exist, be profitable, and contribute to Sony's servers without gatekeeping the functionality of half the PS5's library. It's fine if you are so content with paying for PS+ that it doesn't matter much either way for you. Any justification beyond 'eh,' though, is borderline Stockholm syndrome.
If PC marketplaces and, allegedly, future Xboxes can function without charging their users for the privilege to play games online — in a market where most games are made to be played online — PlayStation can do the same. As can Nintendo. Thinking otherwise just means you fell for the same type of marketing that convinced people bacon is a part of a balanced breakfast and eco-responsibility is in the hands of the individual.
Horror or horror-adjacent, yes. Or, at the very least, Halloween themed (MediEvil Halloween was a great year).
Although, if I'm not on top of my gaming, and am getting swamped with new releases, I'll just keep playing whatever I'm playing. This October, for instance, I've just been playing Pokemon Z-A and Dragon Quest. I was originally planning on getting Silent Hill F, The Mortuary's Assistant, and/or MediEvil 2 (!) for spooky season, but didn't have the time or money to commit to any of them.
I might pause everything for a last minute Luigi's Mansion playthrough, since Nintendo was feeling festive. But I don't really have much time at all today or tomorrow for gaming, so probably not even that.
@LazyDaisy I don't think Sony would be happy at all if they got a console sale accompanied by an extra controller and 10 games. That might be a decent utilization of a user. But every PS5 sold is a potential PS+ subscriber, GaaS investor, and Sony-brand loyalist.
The hope, I'm sure, is that everyone who owns a PlayStation is putting $20-100 into Sony's pocket on a monthly basis.
It's not a direct competitor. And I think people are right to say the traditional gamer isn't going to be swayed by TikTok.
However, it does threaten the future of gaming if children of today are more concerned with social media, holistically, than gaming. Generally speaking, I do think the 'hardcore' gamer is a dying breed. The modern gamer incorporates gaming into their personality and social media consumption, but aren't like the budding gamers of yesteryear that sought to engage with the medium at a historical, cultural, and artistic level. They are not another generation of us weirdos.
So while it's difficult to say whether TikTok is actively taking away from gaming proper, or if the conflict is simply symptomatic of the grand effects social media is having on the youth of today, I do think there's something there. Demographics are shifting, and gaming isn't as attractive for the youth as it used to be.
Kinda like how there was a time where all kids read comic books, and now it's just a hobbyist pass-time for adults; gaming is losing its grasp on the youth and is therefore limiting its growth. At least, that's what I would say if other markets weren't exploding. But still, in terms of capturing children's attention, I think gaming is lagging behind all the other distractions. How that affects the industry in the long run remains to be seen.
The only exciting use of AI in games I've seen was Microsoft's live-coding demo. The thought of a game being able to implement a picture into its game-world in an instant is some Tron s***. Also, the generative dialog people often bring up in these discussions.
On the development side, though, I can't imagine it actually improving anything. Some stuff can be more efficient, sure. Say you need to create 100 different rock textures; why not have an AI do that? But if you have to do anything that actually matters, like design a character or finetune gamefeel, nothing replaces the touch of human artistry. If implemented intelligently, I don't think AI will be a game changer. It'll help a little bit on the backend, but isn't going to be creating entire games by itself — or even be a driving force behind them. I'm sure executives will try to do just that, and they will immediately find out that's a stupid idea that doesn't appeal to anyone and fails to recoup costs.
Having just started my first playthrough of Dragon Quest: The First One, I kinda like how it's this simplistic, no-frills adventure game. No party, no elaborate story, nothing subversive — it's just you, and a linear set of things to do in an open-world. Very The Legend of Zelda...but worse. But since I still think OG Zelda is one of the greatest games of all time, being reminiscent of it is high praise in its own right.
I hope this version gets rid of the Renaissance vernacular bulls*** of the Switch localization, though. I actively dislike talking to NPCs.
Totally Accurate Battle Simulator is one of the best 'f*** around for a weekend games' I've played in a long time. It's a perfect basically-rental game for PlayStation Plus, and a WAY better get than you all seem to realize.
Stray is there for people who don't have Extra, and never got around to buying it. I would say it's a decent headliner for non-hardcore PS+ers. And while I wouldn't bother with WRC 24, I still think y'all would enjoy your subs a lot more if you saw Essentials as a 'mystery box' rental service. And, in that context, a 'whatever' racing game that you never would've played otherwise is a fun inclusion.
I haven't had a PS+ sub in years, but I'm always surprised by how negatively you guys view Essential's game selection. If you're never interested in any of these games ever...leans in maybe you shouldn't be subbed... Unless you're in it for Extra or Premium. In which case, why are you even complaining about Essentials anyway? Seems like its offerings should be irrelevant when you have the huge games catalog of the higher tiers.
This would go a long way towards making PS+ GamePass' equal. Although, for this specific feature, that highest-tier price increase that pissed everyone off also came with a lower-tier feature expansion. Including xCloud as cheap as $10/month. And you can stream on a multitude of different devices; this sounds like it might be limited to Sony devices.
Sometimes, I just don't understand where my fellow gamers are placing their ire. It's just some cute social media post that 1 guy probably put together in 2-3 days. It's not meant to be the defacto celebration of the PS2.
I never really minded The Library. It's not my favorite level, and the encounters are too long and repetitive. But I always thought it was an interesting departure from the level design of the rest of the game. It still works, it's just a little clunky. But that's kinda the charm of art, ya know. On that note, my purist heart feels compelled to poo-poo any significant design changes any remake makes.
Also, Cursed Halo Again had the right idea by prefacing The Library with a Mario Kart Grand Prix. Playing through half the level with S.O.P.H.I.A. didn't hurt, either.
EDIT: Also, upon reflection, I feel like the player was intended to feel lost and frustrated. Because having Guilty Spark calmly humming about while you're in hell adds a lot of animosity between the player and that character. It felt like an explicit artistic decision.
@Dogbreath You saying you're going to avoid the PS6 if they ramp up the costs of PSN is exactly why they won't. Because anyone can just get a PC, or play on GeForce, or a Switch 2, because these are all competing for the same marketshare.
I feel like this comment just tacitly admitted there is no AAA console market to worry about being monopolized. And also summarized the dismissal of the S2 being competition as: it won't play the most cutting-edge games. As though the industry isn't predominantly not cutting-edge games at this point, and people can't find value in a console without the latest and most demanding software.
Kinda feel like most PlayStation franchises have the MCU problem of serviceable, yet forgettable tracks. God of War, Uncharted, and The Last of Us have some good stuff I wouldn't mind seeing in a show. Maybe Ghosts, but nothing's immediately coming to mind on that one.
Since I imagine these things appeal a lot more to music geeks than gamers (really, it's looking for that overlap), I can't say I'm surprised Sony's lineup didn't inspire much demand.
Nintendo gets to do this stuff because they have some of the best soundtracks in gaming, and constantly call back to decades old motifs that are ingrained in pop culture. Sony doesn't quite have that.
@Dogbreath The video game market is very different from the car market. A PlayStation isn't a Ferrari, and a Switch isn't a Ford.
You're right that they, generally, appeal to different niches. But there is a GREAT deal of overlap in their respective pitches. They both play games. They play many of the same games. They are both dedicated to playing games. And they each have exclusive titles that would equally interest many gamers.
Honestly, most gamers would buy either based on their exclusive libraries well ahead of their actual hardware. So, already, that car analogy isn't really holding; it's not like many people buy cars because of what wheels they support. Every minute the Switch is being played is a minute a PlayStation could be played. Exclusives aside, it's not like there are many reasons a Switch owner wouldn't be perfectly content with a PlayStation. And vice versa. Again, this is where the competition remains.
If Sony didn't think Nintendo was a direct competitor, they wouldn't be f***ing with a portable PlayStation. If Sony only ever considered Microsoft's alike hardware competition, they wouldn't have built half their PlayStation brand around offering an alternative to Xbox Live. Like I said, there isn't really a 'AAA console market.' There's just gamers, and peripherals for gaming, all of which vie for the attention of said gamers.
@Hurblyburbly While I don't frequent Reddit enough to understand or interpret its trends, it does feel like saying the esoteric social media platform that's segregated by interests and sub-groups housing all the excitement is a bit damning in and of itself.
I remember hearing it had a decent beta, both in terms of engagement and quality. But it still feels like one of those fast burners; it'll have a nice initial start, slowly peter out between slow content drops and general player disinterest, and will shut down within the next two years leaving behind a legendary legacy for the 10000 players that keep with it throughout.
That, or it'll just barely skirt by with enough players to keep the lights on, but never enough buzz to be remembered.
But Vampire is such a hot IP with grandiose mass appeal, and live-service is a guaranteed win. Who could have predicted this...?
Yeah, I always feel bad for the developers affected, and, in this particular case, am saddened that this IP's going to be locked up in a coffin for a decade or two after this year. But studios really need to evaluate the market better before green-lighting easy-to-see failures.
I remember how crazy it seemed at the time when SEGA cancelled Hyenas, but I guess they just saw the writing on the wall and knew this market wasn't worth investing so much into anymore.
@Dogbreath No, Nintendo is definitely within the same market. They appeal primarily to a niche in that market, but are in the same market regardless.
And Microsoft remains in that market as well, regardless of how 'PC' their next console is. That that's because PCs are also in the market — as are smart phones and cloud services. It's all one market; the "AAA home console" market doesn't really exist, and isn't extremely valuable to have monopolistic control over.
If you don't care that much about high-end fidelity, why not just get a Switch 2? Which has plenty of games, user-friendly portability, and Nintendo exclusives. If you don't mind a slightly more involved UI (assuming they ship the thing with a high functioning UI), why not just get a Xbox SXZ? Which has Xbox games and Steam games, almost one-to-one functionality with a PC, and free multiplayer access. If you don't mind ACTUALLY involved navigation and set up, why not get a PC? Which is ACTUALLY the high-end option, and affords you endless customization and personalization options. If you don't mind the internet requirement, why not get into game streaming? Which is incredibly portable, often comes with its own library, doesn't require buying a console for $100s, and is extremely portable. If you don't care much about gaming, and just like the occasional time-killer, why not get into phone games? Which are increasingly comparable to the AAA console experience, utilize hardware you already own, are often cheap, and maybe more portable than anything else.
Why even buy a PS6 at that point? Because you like PlayStation games and always preferred playing games on a dedicated, powerful device? That's fair. How much of the entire gaming player base feels the same? And right there is where the competition remains.
@AhmadSumadi "And those who own all 3 often decide which console they wanna play multiplatform games on; PS or Xbox?"
You mean everyone else doesn't design an overly convoluted 'dibs' system depending on gameplay and aesthetic genre? Xbox gets gritty realism, sports sims, 6/7th gen callbacks, and shooters. PlayStation gets anime, narrative-driven games, PSone callbacks, and adventure titles. Switch gets cartoon, side-scrollers, retro callbacks, and platformers. Next you're going to tell me you don't separate your Fruit Loops by color...
Honestly, if the next Xbox does away with multiplayer paywalls and still supports the entire back-comp360/X1/Series library — without, say, stupidly letting users play Steam/EGS/etc. without the paywall, but keeping it for their own ecosystem — it would be an easy buy for me.
I know this is a PlayStation site, and whatever. But you guys can't tell me a hybrid console that plays Xbox Marketplace and Steam games without a paywall doesn't sound compelling. Granted, at that point, might as well just get a PC. But if they keep compatibility for the entire Xbox Marketplace (a lot of games are not currently compatible on PC) and design a sleek, functional UI that circumvents all that PC clutter, I would see some good reasons to get it instead. Also if they bring back their back-comp initiative and don't make an ungodly ugly box for the thing.
@nomither6 Especially at this point. Microsoft sells GamePass for GamePass, not online multiplayer. I barely even see PlayStation advertise that PS+ gives you access to multiplayer. And the majority of people subbed to NSO aren't subbing for their unbeatable suite of multiplayer games.
Between free PC multiplayer kinda overtaking the multiplayer space, and f2p titles dominating online player counts, I see little to no reason for any of these companies to still charge for online multiplayer.
@get2sammyb Controlled leak? As your article alluded to, it just makes sense to remove the online multiplayer paywall given the console will basically just be a PC. I could've guessed the same thing months ago; it seems more likely it is just an educated guess rather than misleading crowd control on Microsoft's part.
Comments 1,155
Re: PS2 Set to Remain King of Consoles as Nintendo Switch Sales Start to Stall
@StitchJones They are public, yes.
See, I just like having all games, so I tend to have all consoles. Even if you could argue PlayStation has the most balance between 1st and 3rd party releases, I couldn't imagine missing out on Mario, Zelda, or Halo (PlayStation faithful have one upcoming Halo, meanwhile I grew up with the series) just because I thought any one manufacturer offered the best console experience.
But that's just me.
Re: PS2 Set to Remain King of Consoles as Nintendo Switch Sales Start to Stall
I wouldn't assume it won't best it just yet. 6 million units in 2-3 years of being the "budget" Switch is more than doable. Even though the focus is Switch 2, I don't think its predecessor is going anywhere for a while.
Re: Think PS Plus Essential's Monthly Games Are Getting Worse? The Data Shows You're Wrong
@Ludacritz That's an oddly spiteful and weird thing to do... Weirder yet because I wouldn't know or care, so all you'd be doing is launching a proxy war against a beloved game and darling developer. It's probably just a joke though. Which I guess is...less weird...?
Anyway, I'm just saying you should give a good game another chance. If you don't — whatever. It's your loss.
Re: Think PS Plus Essential's Monthly Games Are Getting Worse? The Data Shows You're Wrong
@Ludacritz It's not that you didn't like it. It's that you dropped it for no good reason.
But that's your decision.
Re: Think PS Plus Essential's Monthly Games Are Getting Worse? The Data Shows You're Wrong
@Ludacritz Justify it however you want. You're missing out on a fantastic game.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@_Nightsever_ I feel like there's some misunderstands happening here. I'm not saying PS+ isn't worth it. Quite the contrary; I'm saying it's so worth it, they don't need to gatekeep multiplayer to have a successful subscription.
And all these comparisons between the big 3's offerings is irrelevant to me. I'm not saying NSO is better than PS+ or GP just because I pay for it. I think all of these are compelling services — Nintendo's is the worst, I just happen to value its offerings for its price. But they're all s***ty in the sense that they gatekeep online play.
Re: Concord's Disastrous Demise Could Help Push for Better Consumer Rights in UK
@DennisReynolds https://kotaku.com/steams-two-hour-refund-policy-forces-horror-developer-i-1847568067
I don't know how much of an issue it really is, I just remember hearing murmurs about it years ago. But PlayStation adopting an alike policy would only, I imagine, exacerbate things. Maybe if developers can petition marketplaces to decrease the playtime barrier to 45 minutes instead of 2 hours based on budget and game length.
But I still much prefer a demo requirement. Maybe with a refund guarantee if that demo is demonstrably not representative of the final product.
Re: Concord's Disastrous Demise Could Help Push for Better Consumer Rights in UK
@Oram77 I feel like this creates a lot of difficulties for developers. Sort of like how YouTubers are incentivized to make longer videos, suddenly game developers would have to basically start all games with 2-hour long demos that tease and entice gamers into not refunding.
I'm all for putting more power into the hands of gamers, but I'd rather not do that at the expense of developers. Maybe a better implementation of your concept would just be a mandatory demo. That way, developers would have control over how gamers preview their game. And it wouldn't create a whole purchase/refund stat to muddle sales.
Re: Think PS Plus Essential's Monthly Games Are Getting Worse? The Data Shows You're Wrong
@Ludacritz Go back and play Psychonauts 2. Getting stuck in some terrain and losing less than 10 minutes of progress is no reason to entirely drop a game. Much less a phenomenal GotY contender like Psychonauts 2.
For what it's worth, I don't recall getting stuck in any terrain throughout my playthrough. But, even still, you should probably reevaluate your standards if a slight lack of polish dissuades your attempts to play a game.
Re: Think PS Plus Essential's Monthly Games Are Getting Worse? The Data Shows You're Wrong
While I think subbers complain far too much about their random games service, these numbers wouldn't prove anything to any one. It's a fun little exercise — crunching the numbers — but an average of several averages comprised of 10-200 arbitrary numerical values isn't going to make anyone happier with a batch of games they don't connect with.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@_Nightsever_
1. That's all fine and good. But if I'm paying to buy a game, I should have access to the full experience. You're basically saying being a patient, savvy consumer justifies companies paywalling essential features.
2. The budget releases are kinda nice in this respect. It would make more sense if, for something like Battlefield 6, the single-player and multiplayer experiences were different purchases. Say $30 for SP, and $40 for MP. That would be cool. But, regardless, lower prices doesn't change the fact that we're stripping a game's functionality and hiding it behind subscription services. Helldivers 2 is essentially worthless without a PS+ sub, and that's a little scummy.
3. I'm not too bothered by Sony and Microsoft charging for multiplayer in the past. I mean, it's still lame, and I think that any game with multiplayer as its main selling point should have circumvented the sub requirement. But I understand that, back then, it didn't really make sense for either of them to build a comprehensive multiplayer infrastructure without financial inventive.
But that was back then; nowadays, Xbox Live and PSN have grown into a full-ass suite of services and perks. They don't sell themselves on online play — they don't need to. So why do gamers uninterested in their features get denied full-functionality for the games they outright buy? Also, unlike then, now half of games are made either exclusively for online play or primarily for it. And multiplayer on PC has exploded in popularity, and has remained entirely free. There are less and less reasons to gatekeep online multiplayer.
Even the whole, "they charge to uphold quality," argument feels moot at this point. It really always felt moot, as I doubt charging for online play would've made Sony's unprecedented 2011 hack fallout any less severe. Cybersecurity isn't really a problem you can solve by just throwing money at it. But, ignoring that, they can still make enough money to support their online efforts through all their service's benefits and perks. I'm sure the majority of people on this site would stay subbed to PS+ if they made online free, as I'm sure the majority of GamePass subscribers don't sub for access to online play. NSO is the only one I subscribe to, and that's mostly because of Nintendo Music and Nintendo Classics; even an objectively worse service offers enough to be worthwhile divorced from multiplayer access.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for November 2025?
You all should give TABS a try. That's all I'm gonna say.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@Rich33 I did say "preferably, completely opening up their ecosystems," and further explored what I meant by that with LogicStrikesAgain.
I'm not advocating for PlayStation specifically dying. Though, I also question if making online multiplayer free on their console would even kill the brand (they could just, like, make cheaper consoles if they're that dependent on PS+ to make hardware profitable). And wasn't even picturing a market with only PCs and Nintendo consoles when I wrote that comment. But, ya know...I wouldn't mind that much, either. If PCs got every game besides Nintendo's, and Nintendo kept making hardware with notable features that differentiates itself from a PC, I would be fine with that.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@LogicStrikesAgain BORING JOB CREW!!!
I think in a specific market, you would be correct. In the specific market I'm picturing, where 'consoles' are just glorified set-spec PCs that can be made by any manufacturer and software clients are able to differentiate themselves and garner unique feature-sets and support, I'm correct.
It depends on a lot of variables. I do think my vision is closer to how it would pan out, though. Already, on PCs, there's Steam, EGS, and GoG. All of them basically do the same thing, and Steam is the clear market leader, but they've all carved out some kinda niche appeal for themselves. Say Microsoft's client is all about GamePass integration, Nintendo's focuses on retro console emulation, and PlayStation does some other third thing. There is reason to believe they could all co-exist. Not to mention, they could technically still have exclusives within their clients — 1st-party or otherwise. I'm really talking about hardware exclusivity, not exclusivity as a concept.
On the hardware front, it'd be just like the portable PC market right now: everyone can make a console that has access to every client and every game. Gamers would just buy whichever one best suits them. Power can play a huge role in it. Something like the Switch's hybrid capabilities could still be a HUGE appeal. Like, literally, just imagine all the consoles we have now, except Mario's on PlayStation, Gravity Rush is on Switch, and every one has full access to Steam. I think such a market is entirely feasible, and might actually be more pro-consumer in the end. Personally, I would love just owning one console that plays everything I want with the only limitation being its power. That also might be better for the majority of developers, as they won't have to optimize for several SKUs and would have more bargaining power when it comes to licensing expenses.
In your defense in regards to Netflix, I did realize immediately after that last comment that they do practice vertical integration (production and distribution), and, in fact, their vertical integration practically mirrors the oligopoly of Old Hollywood I referenced. I still don't think it's a great comparison to gaming's console manufacturers (production/distribution vs. product distribution/means of using product distribution.../production? — wait, maybe I'm wrong... Or maybe all this behavior is trending towards monopolistic...). Well, regardless, it's always a little murky comparing markets to markets in any but the most vague ways. Cable companies used to co-exist despite offering 99% of the same content. It really just came down to price, availability, and features. Does that tell us the streaming market or game market can stay competitive without exclusivity? Dunno, really; all of these markets function very differently.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@_Nightsever_ My Battlefield comment is referring to the multiplayer aspect itself. For a game that predominantly sells itself for its massive online battles, it's a shame its main value is locked behind paywalls for console players. Especially considering it's a $70 game to begin with.
I don't actually care much about skins (or — gasp — Mega Evolutions) being locked behind paywalls, per se. But to lose a significant amount of the game's function because you don't pay $100-200 annually is, I think, ridiculous.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@Rich33 Why would it matter if they aren't making consoles if they are still making games?
I don't really see what the misunderstanding was. You're saying that, if Sony were to eliminate several of their revenue streams, they could no longer justify producing consoles and would focus on software. I'm questioning why them not producing consoles would be a bad thing. Unless you're tacitly implying this would affect their software output, I don't see the disparity. I'm trying to offer the perspective that most people wouldn't be too miffed by such an outcome.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@LogicStrikesAgain It was two phrases and one sentence in all caps among 2 long paragraphs written normally. I mostly intended the all-caps for comedic affect. If that wasn't apparent, that's on me.
But I don't really see the point in this response if you're not going to engage with anything besides the caps. They're easy to ignore, as they only augment repetitious emphasis and unsubstantial vitriol.
The Netflix analogy doesn't make sense, was my point. This is about the dynamisms between hardware and software, basically vertical integration, and the possibility of monopolization thereof. Netflix does not have any comparable vertical integration, so alluding to them and the streaming wars as evidence of the necessity of branded hardware doesn't really make sense. It also ignores that the high-competition of the streaming wars is fairly anti-consumer, in its own right.
And, frankly, I'm not emotionally invested. I'm very bored, at a very boring job, and am procrastinating utilizing this boring time to do actual things I could otherwise be doing with no immediate work and access to a computer. Which I guess is still pretty lame of me... Really, I'm just not adjusting to suddenly being bored at work for extended periods of time very well.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@LogicStrikesAgain Most people seem to baselessly assume PS+ significantly subsidizes hardware costs, you mean.
Given that GamePass, PS+, Xbox Series consoles, PS5 models, and Nintendo's Switch family have all seen price increases as of late, it's a little hard to see the sub models actively keeping the price of hardware down. Unless they would, otherwise, see a minimum of $200 price increases. Also worth mentioning that the Nintendo Switch, and presumably the Switch 2, are sold at a profit, yet Nintendo's still charging for NSO. Almost like it's another revenue source, or something.
As for the dystopic future comment: the competition is in selling games. You know, back in the day, movie theaters were actually owned my production studios. It was not a boon for competition within the movie industry, to say the least. If there were no exclusives, Mario, Master Chief, and Aloy would be vying for the attention of the same player-base — there's your competition. The big three could still be making hardware, it's just they wouldn't be sold on the merits of software — so there would still be competition in that respect. And, if console ecosystems weren't limited to a single manufacturer, technically anyone could make a spiritual Xbox, PlayStation, or Nintendo — MORE COMPETITION. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! Netflix is not solely available on Netflix's hardware. It is software that you can access on 90% of applicable hardware. If PSN was similar — i.e. not tied to hardware — it would still exist in a competitive space. Heck, then Steam would actually have worthwhile competition — MOAR COMPETITION.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@Bez87 I don't see how this point is relevant. For one, I don't personally pay for either PS+ or GamePass, but would buy and play multiplayer games on both platforms if they didn't stupidly require subscriptions. This is really the only reason I've yet to play darlings like Helldivers 2. So, already, I'm evidence of a gamer where the price of online multiplayer matters and the service itself isn't a foregone conclusion of the holistic offerings.
But, more importantly, how is this supposed to make anyone swindled into regular payments for a basic feature that's free elsewhere feel any better about being swindled? How many people do you think sub just for multiplayer access and rarely, if ever, engage with the service's other offerings? Is it fair to them that they have to pay an extra subscription on top of a game's price of admission just to access its full suite of content?
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@Rich33 How's that even a bad scenario? I'm a console gamer, and I like having consoles. But Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all becoming 3rd-party publishers — or, maybe preferably, completely opening up their ecosystems — is not some dystopic gaming future. It's basically the best case scenario for this industry, where everyone can play everything with everyone else, and the biggest names in the industry have to focus on software first and foremost.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@_Nightsever_ Well, see, the thing is, if there are a compelling amount of benefits and perks to these services to the point, for instance, where people on PC would subscribe to GamePass for PC despite not needing it for online multiplayer, it makes significantly less sense that such an essential feature of modern consoles would be locked behind a paywall in the first place.
No one is saying to completely kill PS+, GamePass, or NSO. We're just questioning why we have to pay for a bunch of extra features we might not want just to gain access to 60% of Battlefield 6's content.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@LifeGirl Sounds like a pretty baseless suspicion. It's more likely that people calling for multiplayer on PlayStation to be free remember when it was free, and didn't find the service to be significantly worse in any way. Or, you know, are aware of how free and functional online multiplayer is on PCs.
Also not much reason to believe the infant PSN wouldn't have been down for a month post-hack in 2011 had it been a charged service. It's not like 10+ years of paid PSN has been free of outages. Or that they haven't been hacked. Plus that whole thing with AWS just happened, and that's an incredibly profitable venture.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@DarkTron I would argue, from the perspective of gamers, that isn't actually an important point.
If you just want to give Microsoft ethic-brownies for such a pro-consumer move, sure. It should definitely be noted they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and are instead trying to craft compelling hardware in a somewhat different space with its own norms.
But arguing which multi-million dollar company is more ethical is for fanboys and overzealous enthusiasts. To the average gamer, the 'why' doesn't matter. All that matters is how it affects them.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
@UltimateOtaku91 But Nintendo isn't much of a competitor when it comes to these loyalty subscriptions. Hence why Nintendo's offerings are a fraction of the price; Nintendo themselves know they can't really compete with GamePass and PS+.
For the gamer that predominantly plays online games and hasn't bothered to get into PCs — i.e., what I'm convinced are half of the PS5's userbase — the neXt-box having free online multiplayer would be a big deal. It would, hence, be a big deal for Sony to match that feature. Otherwise they might risk losing a great deal of market share.
Re: Talking Point: If Xbox Drops the Cost, Would You Be Happy Still Paying for PS6 Multiplayer?
Very surprised how many people here have justified the needless costs of online multiplayer with some ill-conceived pretense.
PlayStation Plus offers enough perks to exist, be profitable, and contribute to Sony's servers without gatekeeping the functionality of half the PS5's library. It's fine if you are so content with paying for PS+ that it doesn't matter much either way for you. Any justification beyond 'eh,' though, is borderline Stockholm syndrome.
If PC marketplaces and, allegedly, future Xboxes can function without charging their users for the privilege to play games online — in a market where most games are made to be played online — PlayStation can do the same. As can Nintendo. Thinking otherwise just means you fell for the same type of marketing that convinced people bacon is a part of a balanced breakfast and eco-responsibility is in the hands of the individual.
Re: Poll: Do You Play Horror Games Around Halloween?
Horror or horror-adjacent, yes. Or, at the very least, Halloween themed (MediEvil Halloween was a great year).
Although, if I'm not on top of my gaming, and am getting swamped with new releases, I'll just keep playing whatever I'm playing. This October, for instance, I've just been playing Pokemon Z-A and Dragon Quest. I was originally planning on getting Silent Hill F, The Mortuary's Assistant, and/or MediEvil 2 (!) for spooky season, but didn't have the time or money to commit to any of them.
I might pause everything for a last minute Luigi's Mansion playthrough, since Nintendo was feeling festive. But I don't really have much time at all today or tomorrow for gaming, so probably not even that.
Re: Talking Point: Is PS5 Really in Competition with TikTok?
@LazyDaisy I don't think Sony would be happy at all if they got a console sale accompanied by an extra controller and 10 games. That might be a decent utilization of a user. But every PS5 sold is a potential PS+ subscriber, GaaS investor, and Sony-brand loyalist.
The hope, I'm sure, is that everyone who owns a PlayStation is putting $20-100 into Sony's pocket on a monthly basis.
Re: Talking Point: Is PS5 Really in Competition with TikTok?
It's not a direct competitor. And I think people are right to say the traditional gamer isn't going to be swayed by TikTok.
However, it does threaten the future of gaming if children of today are more concerned with social media, holistically, than gaming. Generally speaking, I do think the 'hardcore' gamer is a dying breed. The modern gamer incorporates gaming into their personality and social media consumption, but aren't like the budding gamers of yesteryear that sought to engage with the medium at a historical, cultural, and artistic level. They are not another generation of us weirdos.
So while it's difficult to say whether TikTok is actively taking away from gaming proper, or if the conflict is simply symptomatic of the grand effects social media is having on the youth of today, I do think there's something there. Demographics are shifting, and gaming isn't as attractive for the youth as it used to be.
Kinda like how there was a time where all kids read comic books, and now it's just a hobbyist pass-time for adults; gaming is losing its grasp on the youth and is therefore limiting its growth. At least, that's what I would say if other markets weren't exploding. But still, in terms of capturing children's attention, I think gaming is lagging behind all the other distractions. How that affects the industry in the long run remains to be seen.
Re: Talking Point: Is PS5 Really in Competition with TikTok?
@Moonvalley2006 I think it's a mint. Kinda like Mentos.
Re: Generative AI Won't Be Creating the Next GTA, Says Take-Two Boss
The only exciting use of AI in games I've seen was Microsoft's live-coding demo. The thought of a game being able to implement a picture into its game-world in an instant is some Tron s***. Also, the generative dialog people often bring up in these discussions.
On the development side, though, I can't imagine it actually improving anything. Some stuff can be more efficient, sure. Say you need to create 100 different rock textures; why not have an AI do that? But if you have to do anything that actually matters, like design a character or finetune gamefeel, nothing replaces the touch of human artistry. If implemented intelligently, I don't think AI will be a game changer. It'll help a little bit on the backend, but isn't going to be creating entire games by itself — or even be a driving force behind them. I'm sure executives will try to do just that, and they will immediately find out that's a stupid idea that doesn't appeal to anyone and fails to recoup costs.
Re: Mini Review: Dragon Quest I & II HD-2D Remake (PS5) - A Comforting Couple of Classic JRPGs
Having just started my first playthrough of Dragon Quest: The First One, I kinda like how it's this simplistic, no-frills adventure game. No party, no elaborate story, nothing subversive — it's just you, and a linear set of things to do in an open-world. Very The Legend of Zelda...but worse. But since I still think OG Zelda is one of the greatest games of all time, being reminiscent of it is high praise in its own right.
I hope this version gets rid of the Renaissance vernacular bulls*** of the Switch localization, though. I actively dislike talking to NPCs.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for November 2025 Announced
Totally Accurate Battle Simulator is one of the best 'f*** around for a weekend games' I've played in a long time. It's a perfect basically-rental game for PlayStation Plus, and a WAY better get than you all seem to realize.
Stray is there for people who don't have Extra, and never got around to buying it. I would say it's a decent headliner for non-hardcore PS+ers. And while I wouldn't bother with WRC 24, I still think y'all would enjoy your subs a lot more if you saw Essentials as a 'mystery box' rental service. And, in that context, a 'whatever' racing game that you never would've played otherwise is a fun inclusion.
I haven't had a PS+ sub in years, but I'm always surprised by how negatively you guys view Essential's game selection. If you're never interested in any of these games ever...leans in maybe you shouldn't be subbed... Unless you're in it for Extra or Premium. In which case, why are you even complaining about Essentials anyway? Seems like its offerings should be irrelevant when you have the huge games catalog of the higher tiers.
Re: 'We Want to Be Everywhere, on Every Platform': Microsoft CEO Once Again Commits to PS5
@Bob_Tempura I actually thought 'Everything is an Xbox' was rather brilliant. It's just the ads themselves sucked.
Re: Rumour: PS Portal Could Be About to Get Even More Compelling
This would go a long way towards making PS+ GamePass' equal. Although, for this specific feature, that highest-tier price increase that pissed everyone off also came with a lower-tier feature expansion. Including xCloud as cheap as $10/month. And you can stream on a multitude of different devices; this sounds like it might be limited to Sony devices.
But, regardless, good feature drop if true.
Re: EA's Game Development Is Very Quickly Becoming an AI-Driven Hellscape, Report Claims
That Battlefield 6 hype, tho.
Re: Sony's Social Media Tribute to the PS2 Borders on Insulting
Sometimes, I just don't understand where my fellow gamers are placing their ire. It's just some cute social media post that 1 guy probably put together in 2-3 days. It's not meant to be the defacto celebration of the PS2.
There are better things to worry about.
Re: Halo's Worst Level Will Be Much Improved on PS5
I never really minded The Library. It's not my favorite level, and the encounters are too long and repetitive. But I always thought it was an interesting departure from the level design of the rest of the game. It still works, it's just a little clunky. But that's kinda the charm of art, ya know. On that note, my purist heart feels compelled to poo-poo any significant design changes any remake makes.
Also, Cursed Halo Again had the right idea by prefacing The Library with a Mario Kart Grand Prix. Playing through half the level with S.O.P.H.I.A. didn't hurt, either.
EDIT: Also, upon reflection, I feel like the player was intended to feel lost and frustrated. Because having Guilty Spark calmly humming about while you're in hell adds a lot of animosity between the player and that character. It felt like an explicit artistic decision.
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
@Dogbreath You saying you're going to avoid the PS6 if they ramp up the costs of PSN is exactly why they won't. Because anyone can just get a PC, or play on GeForce, or a Switch 2, because these are all competing for the same marketshare.
I feel like this comment just tacitly admitted there is no AAA console market to worry about being monopolized. And also summarized the dismissal of the S2 being competition as: it won't play the most cutting-edge games. As though the industry isn't predominantly not cutting-edge games at this point, and people can't find value in a console without the latest and most demanding software.
Re: PlayStation Is Trying to Scrub Any Mention of Its Failed Concerts from the Internet
Kinda feel like most PlayStation franchises have the MCU problem of serviceable, yet forgettable tracks. God of War, Uncharted, and The Last of Us have some good stuff I wouldn't mind seeing in a show. Maybe Ghosts, but nothing's immediately coming to mind on that one.
Since I imagine these things appeal a lot more to music geeks than gamers (really, it's looking for that overlap), I can't say I'm surprised Sony's lineup didn't inspire much demand.
Nintendo gets to do this stuff because they have some of the best soundtracks in gaming, and constantly call back to decades old motifs that are ingrained in pop culture. Sony doesn't quite have that.
Re: Poll: Will You Be Buying Halo: Campaign Evolved on PS5?
No. I mostly want it on Switch 2, otherwise I'll probably just stick to the original on Xbox.
I will try to convince my PlayStation-only friends to buy it and run through with me, though.
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
@AhmadSumadi Damn. You didn't like my self-deprecating Fruit Loops joke, then?
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
@Dogbreath The video game market is very different from the car market. A PlayStation isn't a Ferrari, and a Switch isn't a Ford.
You're right that they, generally, appeal to different niches. But there is a GREAT deal of overlap in their respective pitches. They both play games. They play many of the same games. They are both dedicated to playing games. And they each have exclusive titles that would equally interest many gamers.
Honestly, most gamers would buy either based on their exclusive libraries well ahead of their actual hardware. So, already, that car analogy isn't really holding; it's not like many people buy cars because of what wheels they support. Every minute the Switch is being played is a minute a PlayStation could be played. Exclusives aside, it's not like there are many reasons a Switch owner wouldn't be perfectly content with a PlayStation. And vice versa. Again, this is where the competition remains.
If Sony didn't think Nintendo was a direct competitor, they wouldn't be f***ing with a portable PlayStation. If Sony only ever considered Microsoft's alike hardware competition, they wouldn't have built half their PlayStation brand around offering an alternative to Xbox Live. Like I said, there isn't really a 'AAA console market.' There's just gamers, and peripherals for gaming, all of which vie for the attention of said gamers.
Re: Arc Raiders Release Times: When Can You Start Playing?
@Hurblyburbly While I don't frequent Reddit enough to understand or interpret its trends, it does feel like saying the esoteric social media platform that's segregated by interests and sub-groups housing all the excitement is a bit damning in and of itself.
Re: Arc Raiders Release Times: When Can You Start Playing?
Do people think this one is gonna last?
I remember hearing it had a decent beta, both in terms of engagement and quality. But it still feels like one of those fast burners; it'll have a nice initial start, slowly peter out between slow content drops and general player disinterest, and will shut down within the next two years leaving behind a legendary legacy for the 10000 players that keep with it throughout.
That, or it'll just barely skirt by with enough players to keep the lights on, but never enough buzz to be remembered.
Re: Vampire: The Masquerade's Live Service PS5 Game Bites the Dust
But Vampire is such a hot IP with grandiose mass appeal, and live-service is a guaranteed win. Who could have predicted this...?
Yeah, I always feel bad for the developers affected, and, in this particular case, am saddened that this IP's going to be locked up in a coffin for a decade or two after this year. But studios really need to evaluate the market better before green-lighting easy-to-see failures.
I remember how crazy it seemed at the time when SEGA cancelled Hyenas, but I guess they just saw the writing on the wall and knew this market wasn't worth investing so much into anymore.
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
@Dogbreath No, Nintendo is definitely within the same market. They appeal primarily to a niche in that market, but are in the same market regardless.
And Microsoft remains in that market as well, regardless of how 'PC' their next console is. That that's because PCs are also in the market — as are smart phones and cloud services. It's all one market; the "AAA home console" market doesn't really exist, and isn't extremely valuable to have monopolistic control over.
If you don't care that much about high-end fidelity, why not just get a Switch 2? Which has plenty of games, user-friendly portability, and Nintendo exclusives. If you don't mind a slightly more involved UI (assuming they ship the thing with a high functioning UI), why not just get a Xbox SXZ? Which has Xbox games and Steam games, almost one-to-one functionality with a PC, and free multiplayer access. If you don't mind ACTUALLY involved navigation and set up, why not get a PC? Which is ACTUALLY the high-end option, and affords you endless customization and personalization options. If you don't mind the internet requirement, why not get into game streaming? Which is incredibly portable, often comes with its own library, doesn't require buying a console for $100s, and is extremely portable. If you don't care much about gaming, and just like the occasional time-killer, why not get into phone games? Which are increasingly comparable to the AAA console experience, utilize hardware you already own, are often cheap, and maybe more portable than anything else.
Why even buy a PS6 at that point? Because you like PlayStation games and always preferred playing games on a dedicated, powerful device? That's fair. How much of the entire gaming player base feels the same? And right there is where the competition remains.
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
@AhmadSumadi "And those who own all 3 often decide which console they wanna play multiplatform games on; PS or Xbox?"
You mean everyone else doesn't design an overly convoluted 'dibs' system depending on gameplay and aesthetic genre? Xbox gets gritty realism, sports sims, 6/7th gen callbacks, and shooters. PlayStation gets anime, narrative-driven games, PSone callbacks, and adventure titles. Switch gets cartoon, side-scrollers, retro callbacks, and platformers. Next you're going to tell me you don't separate your Fruit Loops by color...
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
Honestly, if the next Xbox does away with multiplayer paywalls and still supports the entire back-comp360/X1/Series library — without, say, stupidly letting users play Steam/EGS/etc. without the paywall, but keeping it for their own ecosystem — it would be an easy buy for me.
I know this is a PlayStation site, and whatever. But you guys can't tell me a hybrid console that plays Xbox Marketplace and Steam games without a paywall doesn't sound compelling. Granted, at that point, might as well just get a PC. But if they keep compatibility for the entire Xbox Marketplace (a lot of games are not currently compatible on PC) and design a sleek, functional UI that circumvents all that PC clutter, I would see some good reasons to get it instead. Also if they bring back their back-comp initiative and don't make an ungodly ugly box for the thing.
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
@nomither6 Especially at this point. Microsoft sells GamePass for GamePass, not online multiplayer. I barely even see PlayStation advertise that PS+ gives you access to multiplayer. And the majority of people subbed to NSO aren't subbing for their unbeatable suite of multiplayer games.
Between free PC multiplayer kinda overtaking the multiplayer space, and f2p titles dominating online player counts, I see little to no reason for any of these companies to still charge for online multiplayer.
Re: PS6 Could Be the Only Next-Gen Console Charging for Online Multiplayer
@get2sammyb Controlled leak? As your article alluded to, it just makes sense to remove the online multiplayer paywall given the console will basically just be a PC. I could've guessed the same thing months ago; it seems more likely it is just an educated guess rather than misleading crowd control on Microsoft's part.