Rudy_Manchego

I sort of want to jump in but the cost is too high for me and the support is far worse than PSVR was at this point in its life. Plus, I feel that the Quest has cornered this market now.

Ok ok - I'll buy them. Probably announce a remake of a fan favourite from the PS2 era. Then close them. Seems like a solid business model.

@Mince that's fair - and I'll be honest, I never think of their sub service because of its price and lack of content for me personally but its by far a cheaper way of getting into a game like S&B!

I don't understand... it's a AAAA game? Ubisoft said as much?

But seriously, the only way in my mind to get a good player base for this would have been to launch at a lower, AA price point to entice players and try and make money on future DLC. No one is going to risk $70 on a live service game with so so reviews - not when Ubi are known for price drops.

@AshDavies Completely - a lot of trickle down money. If you take FIFA (or whatever EA calls it now), so much of that went to FIFA as an organisation, then to players and teams and agents etc. for likeness rights etc. Then all the online stores that took a cut... Ban it and EA and Activision Blizzard etc. fold overnight.

@AshDavies Really good point. I'd also suggest that a lot of this cheap capital coincided with the Micro Transaction boom where profits shot up due to selling stuff that was cheap to produce and massively popular. For example GTA Online, FIFA etc. So it seemed like a great investment opportunity. Until it stalled.

@LifeGirl Completely right. I got a PS5 at launch because I love my tech etc. However I regularly play with two friends online who still use PS4 because the games they tend to play are MP based and don't need a PS5 to run and will be supported for a good long time. The install base for last gen is too large for many publishers to ignore and is still probably their biggest revenue generator. That and stock issues and so one means previous gen support and cross compatibility has made it less relevant to buy a new gen.

This is a good article and really hammers home the central issue - shareholders expect continued growth but market saturation is probably hit now. There is no one else to sell to. In China, the Govt is clamping down on gaming time with younger age groups. Where is there to expand to?

The chances are that everyone who wants a console or device has one. Older gen models are still largely supported for the games that a lot of people play (Minecraft, Fortnite etc.). Plus the recent gen change is incremental at best. The Switch offered something new at launch but PS5 and XBX/S offers an upgrade on graphics that, ironically, cost too much to make.

The quality of games coming out now is largely phenomenal by and large. So in my opinion, gaming is healthy and is still a huge industry but it isn't a growing industry, at least not as a lot of investors thought in the pandemic and at the eve of the new console gen.

That leaves publishers trying to work out how to get the next huge hit and they look at brands like Fortnite and Minecraft etc. and want a piece of that pie because one of those hits guarantees years of revenue and growth. The issue is that these brands are too firmly entrenched and it won't be until there is a new innovation that these get knocked off the perch which won't be until someone experiments. It won't be a big publisher that builds the next Fortnite because they are too risk averse.

So as always, its doom and gloom, not because people aren't buying games or because games are overall too expensive to make. Its because they can't guarantee huge growth levels. So the market will temporarily contract (painfully) and probably rebound in a few years. In which most of the big publishers will go on another hiring spree.

The thing that annoys me is that budget and scope are controlled by Sony. I think that as a publisher, Sony should fund smaller budgeted games and promote them to promote the brand. A big part of any first party output is to attract gamers to the brand in the hope they spend more on your hardware and digital store.

The PS4 generation was amazing because there was a little for everyone. Great indie support, creative titles, oddities and curios like Gravity Rush, Dreams, Resogun, Bloodborne, Bound, Everybody's Golf, Concrete Genie, Deracine, Farpoint, Wipeout Omega Collection.

They padded out the library and brought a diverse group of players to the generation. I know they didn't make as much money but doesnt mean they didn't do something for Sony as a brand. If they are moving to only worrying about content that is high risk, high reward then they are lessening interest in different niches of the gaming world.

On one hand, my favourite aspect of the series is the combat and could work in a Monster Hunter sort of online coop game with good content. We don't have much detail on what the game is.

Still this is a time of risky strategies and Sony must be looking at the market and (hopefully) rethinking their live service strategy. Helldivers has done well but you can't sustain too many of these releases.

There is one element missing here and this is the point of shareholders and continued growth. The key reason for mass layoffs in a lot of multinationals is to artificially show an instant reduction in costs and thus show better profit projections.

It is a problem with the concept of constant growth. In the pandemic, gaming got record investment because people were spending loads on it. So now any drop in revenue and profitability is seen as a major problem for shareholders and layoffs then follow. The article is right, Sony is not unprofitable. In fact if they laid no one off right now they are not losing money. But it makes investors nervous so best to chop people now and worry about consequences later.

There is a real conundrum at the heart of AAA gaming- better graphics and larger games are needed to fuel software generations and hardware purchases. What is the point of a PS5 Pro or new GPU cards or whatever if games can't take advantage of that? At the same time the cost to wow is higher than ever. Consumers aren't that fussed with these incremental upgrades so the games have to speak for themselves.

I got one this last weekend after about 4-5 weeks of keeping an eye on stock levels (not second hand or scalper based).

I like it for what it is - I am one of those specific use cases where the TV my PS5 is connected to is shared and I often want to play when someone is watching something I have the PS5 connected to the router so signal is good. I used to play on the Logitech G cloud but it wasn't as good as playing with a Dual sense.

So I'm playing DLC for FF7 Remake and played some Spiderman 2 and it works well. I wish it could do more but I bought it for what it does and it does it well. Controls are good, screen is good, latency for me is good.

As a day 1 adopter of the PSVR1, I couldn't justify the cost of the PSVR2. When the PSVR1 launched it was the cheapest mass consumption VR headset. It had some technical limitations compared to the big PC equivalents but it was a full VR headset.

Fast forward to the last year and PC and AAA VR games are very thin on the ground. The Quest range is affordable and can play PC and standalone untethered games. Then the PSVR2 comes out with impressive tech but still needs a PS5 and costs more than the base PS5 console does. Without heavy software expenditure, it's just not that attractive to consumers.

SO my prediction is that PSVR2 will get PC compatibility and backwards compatibility to soften the blow to early adopters, maybe 1 or 2 more big exclusives then just the normal ports of Quest titles for the rest of its life.

I think they are gonna struggle since again, stock issues in the first 2 years and a lack of meaningful price drops have meant that the PS5 doesnt feel like its in the same place as the PS4 was when the Pro dropped. When I picked up the Pro, PSVR had just released, there was HZD and several other big first party titles on the horizon. What titles are going to take advantage of it?

It's all rubbish really. In supporting the argument, yes any live service game does better if available to all. As to the point, who does it benefit? Sony. It benefits Sony as they are still working in the exclusivity world and its a strategic direction that MS have only just piveted.

I think this needs to be a longer Gen for two reasons - 1) The console was not readily available for a good 2 years for the average consumer. Thus for a lot of people, this last year is probably when they got their console at full price with minimal reductions.

2) Game dev cycles are so long that they are now close to exceeding console cycles. If we ignore remasters, Naughty Dog put out what, 5 + titles in the PS3, 4 on PS4 and we are now halfway through the gen and they have released... 0? More than likely we may only get one title. Similar for Sucker Punch, 3 titles on PS3, 3 on PS4 and so far on PS5... 0?

As a lifelong Tomb Raider player, I personally think it would be a shame to ditch the reboot trilogy Lara and start from scratch but would rather those be treated as prequels and that this is the person she has evolved into.

Couldn't give two ploppy poos what she looks like. There is no agenda. Who cares?

The issue is with the time it takes to make these exclusives - the average AAA turnaround is now 5 years, especially if new IP or using new engines etc. Appreciate some devs like Insomniac have turned around releases quicker but I would guess that a lot of the work of Miles Morales and Spiderman 2 was built on the original release.

Its kind of the problem that MS has with its acquisitions. They have bought Bethesda and Activision etc. but practically, they are still releasing games that were commissioned before the acquisitions. Ninja Theory was bought in 2018 and is only now releasing it's first major title not already underway (Grounded was already in production before MS acquisition if I recall). Starfield existed before the acquisition.

It's also why we see AAA games falling over with mechanics that are no longer popular. Suicide Squad started dev at a point when live service games and models were considered the future. Now they are not very popular but far too late to change direction.

These lead times are really stifling generations. Not sure of the solution but it means that we need to expect only 1 major exclusive every year from a lot of publishers with small or third party titles in between.

By classic metrics, this does show outstripped competition. However as noted, it does depend on the purchasing power of the two groups. The real data, that we don't have, is the combined revenue from Gamepass (for both console and PC) plus sales on those platforms compared for like for like. My guess is still that PS5 has both the bigger install base AND revenue stream across console and PC even with Gamepass but those are the real figures.

Getting real tired of these remakes now. My view is that if you can still play the originals on current gen hardware (which you can with this game) then it's just a cash grab. If you are remaking something from a dead era that is impossible to play without emulation (e.g. Shadow of the Colossus or Metroid Prime) then I'm sort of OK with it. But this... why?

Personally I see this as evidence that the subscription service is and always was a bubble and unless market dominance is reached, probably unustainable.

If we look at the cost of Starfield or maybe the upcoming Indiana Jones games, offering them for just a monthly sub service that people can drop in and out of just can't work unless you can turn those subs into regular payers. But that is not how people use subscriptions - a lot of people sign up for limited periods.

The issue is here that you are now eliminating the very reason to take that sub out in the first place. If I am a PS5 owner then why bother getting a second machine for exclusives or anything. I can just wait a year. The same is true on PC - Starfield has already seen price reductions on Steam or other platforms meaning why take out a sub when you can get the game fairly cheap? Which means MS is now moving itself to become a publisher which can be profitable but moves them away from Xbox brand.

@TrickyDicky99 Ah I can see the confusion. You see The Last of Us Remastered was a PS4 revision of the PS3 title The Last of Us whilst the Last of Us Part 1 Remastered Remastered is a remaster of PART 1. The Part 1 makes all the difference here

@Octane Ah you mean the TLR2PU for short?

The Last of Us Part 1 Remaster Remaster

I primarily play on PC these days so physical is not there. However I still buy and collect physical games, especially on Switch. My favourite retro and new game independent shop closed over a year ago now because they just couldn't make it work. I'm gutted that there are so few shops now doing physical games and that there is little presence on the high street for window shopping and discovering games or bargains. With retro collecting also hitting astronomical prices, there is just no where to shop.

I am somewhat hoping that this is a true statement in that this is the market equalising after Covid when investment in gaming went through the roof. But it has also been happening for years. 50-60 games are being released A DAY on Steam. Yes a lot are rushed efforts etc. or asset flip cash grabs but many are games that just won't get any promotion. Add in subscription services that prioritise only those games available and everything and you have a perfect storm.

Agreed - especially for kids and families. Major online games are fully compatible with PS4 and will be for ages to come and if your TV isn't pretty top of the line or are gaming in a spare room, you aren't going to notice much. I have a few friends with kids who still game on PS4 or XB1 because why bother upgrading when they only play Fortnite? Some of these were purchased post PS5 and Series X/S launch

It's a bizarre situation. Is exclusivity a MS aim or not? That's the question. They are sitting on a wealth of money by releasing their studios games on other platforms. They already do it on PC. But... then where does this leave their console and gamepass sub? Gamepass will always be value for money if the current service continues but whats the draw? Is it just timed exclusivity? In which case, will they get the sub rush when new games are released or will people wait?

I mean Hi Fi Rush is great and I did play it on Gamepass (for PC) and it was one of their big successes last year. It will do business on PS5 if it releases so more money but hey, who knows?

It is a brave new world and all that but gaming has become something very different, particularly in the last few years. Fortnite isn't popular because of gameplay or shooting mechanics. It's because it is a societal eco system.

1) The price of entry is largely a device capable of playing it.
2) It allows you to play with friends and have a social element to it.
3) It isn't just the game - there online communities on Twitch, Youtube, Tik Tok to bond and embrace in it.

As an oldie, I lament the loss of what I think of gaming as but ultimately, that still exists. As a kid growing up with no money and always a generation behind, my richer friends would be playing PS1 whilst I was on SNES. I couldn't afford lots of new titles so was never part of the current social topic. If I were growing up i could play on my parents phone or tablet and be able to join in.

I've been waiting for a sale for Jedi Survivor for some time and it is dropping in price but I've noticed this annoying trend in recent digial sales (Across platforms) that only the silver jubilee penultimate deluxe Gold Platinum versions go on sale for still way more than the base game.

this is cool. I was hoping it had a more niche question though, like which Western RPG that launched in 2015 was editor @get2sammyb initially uninterested in?

I mean sure, he was a key player in the most successful period in PlayStation, especially in Europe, was at the helm when a new gen was launched to dominate sales but yeah, this guy is clueless. Good riddance.

@Yinx I have noticed this a lot with recent sales across platforms. Big name games get discounts but only on the deluxe or gold or platinum or whatever editions which are just as expensive as the base game.

I have dusted off my PC save and jumped back in. Managed to get it running nicely on the ROG Ally and my PC. have respecced my character. Probably wrongly.

@Kidfried I know and they are like tea leaves or tarot cards. People see what they want to see. Be it pro-Sony, MS or Nintendo.

In the UK, the only real place you can even buy new video games are a couple of nationwide stores and online. I'm a fan of physial games and even I've only bought a handful this year. You make a great point about Nintendo - their first party line up is often far cheaper physical and they are often bought for younger fans by parents who want a physical gift.

@Kidfried I come here every week to see you reminder people of how pointless a reminder this is of success and people ignore it and carry on with their own versions of the truth.

Except for Mario Kart 8.

I mean this email is several years old but I still gotta wonder if MS is going to reconsider their subscription model at all or going to keep throwing stuff at it?

With Disney losing millions on Disney +, the subscription scramble seems to showing its limitations. The only way I can see that MS can make it work long time is by being the main content producer, hence all these acquisitions. However they are probably hitting their limits now with the Activision Blizzard purchase bfore monopoly rules will catch up with them

Sigh this is the problem with internet drama and outrage. It can, and will spill over from genuine debate to real world madness.

As a big fan of indie games, what Unity has suggested is downright horrendous and will absolutely cause a huge financial burden on indie devs. It is right that this is decried and that people choose with their wallets to support their devs. Protest through legitimate means.

And the frustrating thing is that once that happens, the debate shifts and the threats become the story.

As a multiplatform gamer the only real reason I have kept the lowest tier is for online play as weekly gaming buds are all on PS. I get that costs are going up and that subscriptions are plateuing but this will kill the second and third tiers dead imo.

I think subscrition fatigue is real and the result of so many coming online and the fact that it is the definition of luxury when it comes to any economic downturn.

It is also hard, imo, to get consistent growth in that market. Only so many can and will consistently subscribe. Plus you need constant fresh content which means development or licensing costs to attract that content to your platform just to maintain your subscriber base, let alone grow it.

I think, as a gamer, Gamepass is great. I have Ultimate and use it a lot on PC, console and cloud. I just don't see how it is currently profitable. Hence why MS is trying to buy exclusive content via studio acquisitions. It makes people have to come to you.

Huge fan of game streaming in the house when the TV is in use but as others have said, you can use a phone or other devices that can also do more. For another hundred or so pounds at the moment you can get a Logitech G cloud that also does emulation and Gamepass etc. The lack of PS Plus Premium streaming is also a huge pain. This would have made it far more useful.

@nessisonett Yeah just seems out of place for the site.

As an addition, going to play the I'm a parent card but my daughter loves Fortnite and a few other games that have cosmetics etc. So are her friends. I agree with all sentiments that parents need to put up parental controls (although I do feel that for non gamer parents, the need to do so may not be apparent - when setting up a new online account it takes card details first then worries about parental control later).

My main concern is that establishment of dopamine hits in kids related to gambling mechanics. A good game gives its own hit when players do well in it. Tying those vibes to a gambling mechnanic, regardless of whether parents are paying or gift cards etc, become addictive and cause problems.

Any particular reason why the hotly debated topic of gambling mechanics in games has a headline based on a meme often used to exaggerate irrational concerns (as well as the term 'Big Brother' for government legislation)?

Is the topic of gambling mechanics in lootboxes not a real one?

Eh - they need to shake it up quite a lot. I think they did the medieval setting perfectly and used up all the opportunities.

This sort of game dev cost is unsustainable longer term. In pure sales and revenue after supplier costs etc. and marketing, a game selling 10 million units over a lifetime is going to be profitable but not by much. At the same time, Sony as a publisher is spending as a strategy towards an eco system so the benefits are not just in unit sales but brand and loyalty etc.

I remember when the Zenimax deal was announced and I was lamenting it for all gamers as being bad and a bunch of people told me that there was NO WAY Xbox would leave money on the table and make any major games Xbox exclusive.

The reason why there are investigations into mergers etc. is for this very reason. Any major corporation would like to drive their rivals behind them and would do so if they had the resources and were allowed to. Sony would try the same if they could. All these acquisitions just aren't good for the industry ultimately.

Man I am going to lord it over those Xbox fools during those 2 days. Mwahh ha ha hahahahahahahah

It felt more like an E3 shower which was cool. I hope Starfield sticks the landing. I have as much trust with Bethesda as anyone but I like what they are trying to convey.

My real concern is just the spiralling dev time for new AAA releases. If major studios take 3-4 years on average to release 1 title, that means that there just isn't the output to regularly showcase. Xbox is no exception. Most of these games we were aware of a long time ago and are still a year at least away.

We are at a stage where AAA games are taking so long to make, and are so expensive that there just aren't enough to do regular big reveals so we'll all be disappointed. Then you look at the Day of Devs events and announcements and there are like loads of amazing looking smaller titles.

Brave individual to show a hacked ROM running on PC with Nintendo's lawers about.

Why do I need a computer to give me a facial? Confusing USP.