RoomWithaMoose

@lazarus11 I dunno, I think I'd say Psychonauts 2 is better than every PlayStation Studios game this generation. Debatable if that really counts as an "Xbox game," but still.

I guess I would hold the likes of God of War Ragnarök, Ghost of Yōtei, and Spider-Man 2 marginally above Halo Infinite, Gears 5, and Crackdown 3. But I kinda think all 6 games are a tad generic and boring. Honestly, if Fable doesn't suck, I'm significantly more into that than really everything PS5 besides Astro Bot, Rift Apart, and Soros.

@Gunnerzaurus If you're only gaming on PlayStation, why would you care if it doesn't have exclusives?

And I sort of resent your borderline gatekeepey "for people who were here for PS1-PS5" comment. Honestly, what's that have to do with anything? I've been here for PS1-PS5, and Xbox-XoneX, n64-S2, Dreamcast-CRIES and I don't really care if any of these consoles have exclusives.

Don't get me started on "when more people play, we do not all indeed win."

@Steelninja Why on Earth aren't you doing PCVR?

@UnlimitedSevens Well, you're coming at it from the perspective of a game-focused hardcore gamer that wants to hardcore game. I empathize with that perspective; I buy specific game consoles to play specific games. I bought the Switch 2 specifically for Donkey Kong Bananza, a PS5 for Rift Apart and PS4 exclusives (sold my PS4 years prior), an Xbox One for...Crackdown 3 or something and backwards compatibility exclusive titles (sold ALL my consoles years prior, actually), Wii for Super Mario Galaxy,etc.

Most people, however, just buy one game console to play games in general. And which specific console it is tends to be whichever one is or seems popular to them. I.e., all the kids at school have a Switch, so I want a Switch. Or: all my friends are online on PS4, so I should get a PS4. For these gamers — which is most of them — they're probably buying Minecraft or GTA WAAAAY before any exclusive. Hence, the exclusives didn't really matter in the first place.

On the hardcore front, gamers can still buy one console over another on superficialities. Back in their heyday, I'm pretty confident Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus were deciding factors on whether to go 360 or PS3. The Wii, Wii U, and Switch all had specific peripherals/functionality that they're remembered for. Within the portable PC space I previously cited, there is plenty of direct competition and comparison between the Steam Deck and ROG Ally based on input and specs. Seems like there's even plenty of gamers that stuck with PlayStation or Xbox based mostly on which controller they preferred.

Casuals buy consoles on a whim, hardcores often consider every minute feature or perk. For either, exclusives might be a part of the conversation, but probably isn't the be-all end-all.

@KundaliniRising333 I also think establishing a presence on PCs now helps future proof the brand if bespoke gaming hardware becomes passé.

I think the most common argument against Sony porting to PC is to point at how successful Nintendo is due to exclusivity. But that argument ignores that Nintendo hardware isn't terribly compelling without exclusives, Nintendo IP is magnitudes more valuable than PlayStation IP, Nintendo likely could port Breath of the Wild or Super Mario Odyssey to PC at this point without undermining Switch 2 sales, and they are very much at risk of being left behind if there's an industry-wide inflection point in software delivery to consumers.

@UnlimitedSevens This comment was directed at Dogbreath, not me, but I wanted to respond: The problem with this analogy is that the console market isn't identical toothbrushes and never would be.

Your assumption that the cheaper hardware will always win without exclusives ignores that — well, for one, the highest selling console each generation already tends to be the cheapest regardless of exclusives — many markets already exist wherein the cheapest options are not the market leaders. The most successful smartphones tend to be the more expensive ones. I recall hearing a story of a cheap wine that barely sold anything, then they upped the price for no actual reason to give the appearence of 'premium' quality and sales exploded.

Hell, even with toothbrushes, there wouldn't be so many gimmicks and newcomers if everyone was going to the dollar store for them. Personally, I have a quip. Not the cheapest option, but I like it because it looks slick and has a replacement head delivery service. Aesthetics and services. Nothing saying gaming hardware can't sell on the same propositions.

EDIT: Funnily enough, my comment is actually fairly applicable to the response directed at me.

@UnlimitedSevens "From a purely business standpoint, how does no exclusives work in practice? Like, how?"

Like the portable PC market, except Sony and Nintendo are also there. They can have their own launchers and/or OSes on PCs, and they can still make their own hardware. But every gaming-compatible hardware is essentially a functional PC, and all games are available everywhere.

@Zeke68 "M$ [...] have done nothing, NOTHING!, to make our gaming better that last 20 years or so."

That's, like, factually untrue. Unless you hate most of modern gaming. Online play was popularized because of Xbox, indie gaming really started on Xbox, achievements/trophies exist because of them, they were the primary advocate for crossplay, the concept of owning a game on multiple platforms with one purchase is theirs, and their competition kept Sony and Nintendo putting in more effort than they likely would've otherwise. Never mind how they contributed to growing gaming audiences, which helped sustain and build the industry.

And, maybe most importantly, ALL THE GAMES MICROSOFT HAS HAD A HAND IN. We won't count their recent acquisition escapades — with the exception of Psychonauts 2, which would've launched in a less complete state had Microsoft not funded the tail-end of development — but the industry would've really lost something had it never seen Halo, Gears, Fable, Crackdown, Alan Wake, Mass Effect, or Forza. Not to mention the many cult classics that gamers and Microsoft alike can't be bothered to remember, like Crimson Skies, Kung Fu Chaos, Sunset Overdrive,etc.

Microsoft's existence in the gaming space has been a net positive.

@Gunbeld I seriously doubt those who see value in PlayStation Studios on PC are inherently not PlayStation fans.

Business-wise, Sony is in a great spot where they can sell consoles without exclusives. Case in point: this entire goddamn generation. Given the circumstances, it really is extra money for them, and a chance to grow the fan base. And, if they're going to continue chasing Fortnite, it's practically necessary to foster a successful live-service.

Consumer-wise, the more people have access to games, the better. There's really not much reason to be pro-exclusives outside of schoolyard arguments. I don't think it's a big deal either way — being anti-exclusives often comes off as entitled — but still not much reason to discourage sharing.

I've questioned the value of the PS5 in the past on the basis of a lack of exclusives. But I think it's pretty obvious the market doesn't care, and I own one regardless. They're fine, their brand is fine. They can keep doing that they're doing and be fine. Unless the Helix completely overtakes the market, but that almost definitely won't happen.

Nah. I'm extremely interested in Helix, and there's a high chance I'll buy it. With that said, Sony can continue doing whatever the f*** they want and likely continue dominating the high-end console space.

Unless Sony absolutely shoots themselves in the foot somehow (like spreading themselves too thin trying to compete directly with the Switch), I doubt Helix or the Steam Machine can do much to disrupt the PS5's status as the go to console.

@AgentMantis Generally, looking at the numbers, it does not seem like they've followed up on their distaste for the game by actually reviewing it.

In a sense, I don't think anyone's review bombing it, and I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of its superficial detractors didn't even notice it released.

Also, looking at the concurrent Steam numbers of other GaaS/multiplayer titles that actually had staying power, they were launching in the hundreds-of-thousands. Marathon, meanwhile, didn't break 100,000 and might already be settling at under launch-day numbers. Of course that's not the whole story, but it doesn't bode well for a game you'd figure is most suited for PC gamers.

PlayStation gamers really have to pick up the slack. And I'm not sure the 3k user reviews really indicate that...

Honestly. I think a lot of early user positivity is just down to no one else caring.

@Yousef- That story is propagandistic nonsense that only serves the purpose of debasing the Hare.

Slow and steady never wins the race, unless its obvious superior manages to inexplicably self-sabotage to a spectacular degree for no reason.

F*** the Tortoise.

As someone with a vast PC library without a high-end PC, who skipped the Series S|X, and has no real intention on buying a PS6, I am immensely interested in this console.

Though I like how confirming long running rumors is what Asha considers "commitment to the return of Xbox."

@DennisReynolds 100% this. My guy talking like paying $20 to rent a game is some kinda life hack...

@PuppetMaster Naughty Dog can't, but Sony can. We're already seen Bend take a crack at Uncharted, and the PSP/PSVita were rife with IP being handed to smaller developers. Even look at Microsoft, handing one of their biggest IPs (not saying much), Fable, to a trusted partner.

@PuppetMaster Consider that the people asking for more Uncharted might not be the same ones asking for new IP.

Also, they are not mutually exclusive in the first place. People can desire a balance of supporting established franchises while exploring new IP, and Sony can simultaneously fail at both.

@lazarus11 I had a friend that made me watch 2 of them. I stand by what I said.

If those trailers gave me a sense of anything, it was feature bloat. Maybe it'll all come together, and I've no doubt it'll be a fun sandbox if nothing else.

@Max_the_German My big thing — and maybe this is just because I haven't watched all promotional material — is we really just see combat and traversal options.

I don't really understand what exploration looks like in this game. Or quest design. It seems like every trailer is just: "LOOK AT THE CRAZY PARTICLE EFFECTS DURING COMBAT AND HOW YOU CAN RIDE A DRAGON/MECH/HORSE!!!!!!!!!!!"

The game hasn't convinced me anything is actually worth engaging in besides combat. Which isn't great for an open-world pseudo-RPG.

@Vaako007 Sure, it's cheaper. But that "overhead" is also horribly disruptive to core development.

A well-developed and optimized custom engine is better than Unreal. But a well-developed and optimized custom engine is not a guarantee of a custom engine. And making an engine concurrently with a game often hinders game designers, which can compromise the entire project.

@Deadlyblack I mean, there's a reason a lot of developers just use Unreal. Building and optimizing your own engine while simultaneously developing a game in it is often cited as development hell.

I dunno if this is the same engine their precursing MMO ran in, but even translating a MMO engine to a single-player game can bring its own set of problems.

@ButterySmooth30FPS https://shodan.fandom.com/wiki/The_Many

@ButterySmooth30FPS Having just beaten System Shock 2, I am perturbed and disgusted by the implication.

With that said, I'd reckon a Golden Abyss remake would be a bit of fun.

Honestly, kinda feel like Uncharted has run its course. Maybe it's just because I've never been a big fan of the series, but I'd imagine it'd feel about as tired and played out as Gears or Halo had they kept up with releases. And while you could ideally do a Norse of War style reboot, I really don't know what Uncharted's universe would contribute above just making a new IP.

@ButterySmooth30FPS Who the f*** is "we," here?

Welp, just tried it with a buddy. When we finished, he uninstalled it...

I'm sorry, guys, I'm really not seeing it. I played Helldivers II for the first time recently, and, while it still wasn't much my cup o' tea, I definitely saw the appeal. I'm really struggling with Marathon, though. Honestly, I would've uninstalled it, too, if I didn't have another bud who might want to try it out.

I guess things did actually happen these rounds — so there's that...

I dunno. Kinda feel like the "density" here is just poor, obfuscated design rather than a feature.

Monster Hunter is dense. It also is almost instantly engaging in a way Marathon isn't.

EDIT: Also, getting a little tired of hearing everyone talk about how good Bungie's shooting design is. I love Halo, but never thought they were innately punchy. Playing Marathon, it doesn't feel particularly better than any other quality shooter I've played in the last decade. Except other shooters actually give me s*** to shoot.

@somnambulance As soon as the tutorial started, all I could think of is how much cooler this would be as a linear, single-player experience.

I would still be very interested if they put that together.

I don't play extraction shooters, so that can be a big part of it. But are they normally so boring? Dropped into a map with the most boring objectives a boring open-world game could muster, pick up lots of random s*** like it's goddamn Fallout, shoot a few bots with gunplay that could come out of literally any modern shooter, and randomly get ambushed like you're on Fortnite — except the density of other players is so nebulous, you never know how on edge you should be.

I'm going to try it again with a friend this weekend, if I have the time. But I was bored out of my mind for the 2 matches I played. Literally nothing even happened in the first match. It took 10 minutes of nothing in the second match for me to to randomly get killed from behind. And I didn't even care about losing stuff, because the game does such a terrible job with presentation that I never understood what the hell anything was for or why I should want to collect stuff in the first place.

@Deadhunter Honestly, kinda respect Netflix just saying, "Nah, f*** this."

Honestly, exclusive titles do not really matter to me at this point. Nor to most others, I reckon.

While I feel it does devalue their hardware, and puts people in a position where PC kinda just makes more sense to invest into, I don't think it's really mattered to the consumer-base at all. People continue buying PS5s, most of them not even for its exclusives. So, while a lack of compelling exclusivity remains a striking point against the PS5's worth, it's pretty obvious the market doesn't care.

@LogicStrikesAgain Actually, I'm perfectly satisfied with continuing an online debate indefinitely. Regardless of how much it may have degraded into a cyclical exercise of two people talking through each other. I did once have an 2-week-long, on-and-off debate about the cultural value of race-swapping established characters in fiction, and I'm equally proud and ashamed of it. No regrets — would do again.

But, I appreciate that's just my flavor of insanity. Given that the only path I see a response to your comment taking is questioning the semantics of 'support,' and the insipid nature of arguments over semantics, I entirely support your insistence to shut this down now and do better things with your time.

@themightyant I never troll. If I ever did, I would brake my computer and forbid myself from being online. I do, however, occasionally amuse myself with facetious parallelism.

Your original argument was that there's no reason to critique Sony's output if there's plenty to play on their console. I think that's a very bad argument, for reasons I feel I've adequately expressed.

The 'Sony still makes those games' argument I've elaborated upon with Logic. While I don't agree with Max in saying they're underrepresented, I think he's justified in feeling that way WITH the added wrinkle that he dismisses several of their games as boringly derivative. But this is really Logic's rhetorical stance. I don't really have more to say about this particular point that I haven't already said in debate with Logic, so refer to all that.

As for my Nintendo example, the hypothetical was not meant to be a 1:1 simulation of Sony's reality. Rather, I was trying to exemplify an instance in which someone could undeniably be critical of a manufacturer's output regardless of any of the softening circumstances you'd used to dismiss such criticisms.

@themightyant Shrugs

Sure.

But that wasn't really the point you were making in your rebuttal, nor relevant to the point I made to refute said rebuttal.

@LogicStrikesAgain Shrugs

Sure.

But you can also call it a tad pedantic to ignore his better formulated point to focus on its clumsily worded catalyst.

@LogicStrikesAgain Like I've said, I don't really agree with the assertion PS5 has been lacking in cinematic, single-player games. So I really can't touch on that specific point much.

I do, however, see where Max is coming from, and felt he was within his rights to reframe the criteria with which he accredits a game the 'cinematic single-player' type he covets.

@themightyant Well, if someone is a particular fan of the kinds of games a console manufacturer is known for, and that manufacturer fails to deliver those types of games, are they not entitled to be disappointed?

Maybe conceptualize it less as a critique of the PS5, and more so one of PlayStation Studios. These critics are fans of PlayStation THE DEVELOPER, not necessarily PlayStation THE CONSOLE.

Imagine if Nintendo just stopped making local multiplayer games for the Switch 2 — a genre they are well known and renowned for. Even if the S2 continued getting local multiplayer games from indies and 3rd-parties, is it not fair for fans of Nintendo's multiplayer games to call out the company for failing to produce the kinds of games they set a precedent for themselves to produce?

@Carnage VR is niche, but people aren't talking about how the Meta Quest is dead or the Steam Frame DOA. Of the current niche headsets in an increasingly shrinking market with notable mass appeal, PSVR2 stands as perhaps the most irrelevant and certainly the least supported.

And that's what people are talking about.

@LogicStrikesAgain You can argue it's a personal taste thing, sure.

But, you acknowledging a "drought" does reinforce his point that they were unfocused as an objective reality that happened. Still, like I said: your list is fair. However, that doesn't mean he's barred from recontextualizing his point in a way that invalidates said list.

"Returnal, Astro Bot, Wolverine, Intergalatic. That is the list with completely new experiences from PS Studios" That says it all. 'Okay, there have been single player games — sure. But 5 years into this generation, we've only gotten 4 wholly original, cinematic single-player games from a development house made famous because of them.' That's what he's saying with that comment, and I think that's likewise fair. Maybe clarified at an inopportune moment, but fair, and, very likely, present in his mind while writing his first comment.

As stated, I don't agree with the critique about Sony's output of cinematic single-player games this gen. As someone that's likewise critical of their contemporary output, I do think they've given fans of Uncharted, The Last of Us, Norse of War,etc. plenty to chew on this generation. My problem lies in only satiating those fans while chasing the stupid GaaS dragon. However, as I similarly think the PS5 library is derogatorily derivative of the PS4 library, it seems like a perfectly reasonable criticism to question why all we've seen from Naughty Dog are The Last of Us remakes, and why Insomniac spent 5 years making Spider-Man two more times.

@LogicStrikesAgain Isn't the poor allocation of developmental resources exactly what he was talking about?

I was more focused on mighty's rebuttal than the crux of the disagreement between you and Max. But, to jump into that, while I think it's entirely fair for you to say he moved the goalposts to dismiss your list, that doesn't mean his justification therein isn't valid.

Yeah, Sony is putting out cinematic single-player games. But it's not to the pace or originality that Max desires. So, I'd say your list is correct, but it makes sense it didn't sway him whatsoever. And within the context of this singular argument, yeah, it's moving the goalposts to invalidate your list like that. But, based on my knowledge of this community and precedent, his addendum of prerequisites seemed well-established elsewhere.

@ButterySmooth30FPS Based on how the game looks from videos and trailers, I'm disappointed.

@scottdevine48 Live-service 1v1vE 'battle royale' Looney Tunes game where 2 players have to Spy v. Spy each other in a massive map filled with a bunch of interactive NPCs, set-pieces, items, traps, vehicles,etc. Matches could take upwards of an hour, and would be filled with classic 'rabbit season, duck season'-esque antics as the 2 players try to outwit each other and gain the upper hand.

Lola can be hot in it, too — I don't care.

Can we get Arkham Origins on PlayStation, daddy Warner? No? Okay, then...

Hey, mommy Netflix...?

@themightyant You know, the thing that always bothers me about this 'I can't keep up with games' defense is that this attribute is not exclusive to the PlayStation. Gaming, in general, is incredibly difficult to keep up with these days. Even on my Xbox One (not Series), I have a backlog of 50-70 games and a wishlist of 90 games. I haven't even beat Metroid Prime 4 yet 'cause I've been pulled away for other things on the S2 — never even 100% Bananza.

Yes, there's more than enough s*** to play on the PS5. It is a good console. All contemporary consoles are good consoles. But Max up there is talking about a specific issue he specifically has with Sony's — SPECIFICALLY — support. And while I don't completely agree with it (I'd say their output of cinematic single-player games has been fine this generation. Slow, but fine, My issue is that we're only really getting that and live-service), I don't see how your point is any sort of effective rebuttal to his point.

Mmm, guys having the mode locked behind either beating the game OR entering a cheat code doesn't fundamentally undermine those 'false marketing' criticisms.

I never cared, but really feels like their point is going right over your head if you think this completely invalidates their outrage.

@LogicStrikesAgain At this point, I'm just waxing poetic about diction taken in a literal sense.

@naruball You know what: Fair.

@LogicStrikesAgain You can still buy an Atari VCS from GameStop. Looks like Atari proper just had a big sale on it and are sold out; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that was the last of their stock and it is wholly and entirely dead in their eyes from this point forward. But still, that means people were just buying it, and it even just got Yeet Fighter (YEET FIGHTER!!! Whatever that is...). None of this is super relevant, but I haven't actually looked into the status of the console in a while now and thought that was all interesting.

Anyhoo...uhh, I dunno. Not really much else to say about VR2. If you think Microsoft Flight Simulator's year-late VR update — that definitely isn't going to be cancelled between all the turmoil at Xbox, VR2's continued sluggish sales, and MSFS's presumably ho-hum PS5 launch — some other flight sim that Steam doesn't like, the legitimately cool-looking Automa, and 71 other nebulous titles I'd assume "low-effort low-quality misleading marketing games" might apply to means the peripheral cannot be claimed as dead, more power to ya.

Going back to the semantics of "dead," this idea that 'dead' means 'out of production, no game releases, not on sale' really brings me back to my old Nintendo fanboy days of rebutting people saying it had no 3rd-party support. Sure, in a literal sense, both are incorrect. But, frankly, no one means it in a literal sense. The Wii U had 3rd-party games, but neither the quantity nor quality to be significant. The PSVR2 isn't quite dead and buried, but it might as well be. The same way someone might say nothing in a movie's plot made sense when what they really mean is that the plot had too much nonsense and contrivances.

To criticize the use of 'dead' here is really to impose a standard of consistently literal language that I'd honestly assume 0% of the population adheres to or wants to adhere to. 'Bad' meant 'good' for a time. '67' means more than its numerical value...I guess (?). Language isn't definite, is malleable, and casually has metaphorical double-meaning every other spoken sentence. To get so hung up on the definitional meaning behind words when the speaker's intent is fairly obvious can be seen as its own failure of language.

EDIT: I just wanna say, sometimes I impress myself with my ability to talk ad infinitum about f***in' nothing. Ya know, if anyone is interested in how figurative language works, do I have a two-paragraph essay for you!