ecurb7

@Striker21

I'm not sure I've ever read anything quite so crazy on a gaming site before.

You know that games take many, many years to make, right? But your plan would be for Microsoft to have its many studios working on all these games for years - without releasing any of them - to save them all up and then release them over the course of a single year? So, expect fans to keep paying for gamepass all through the years of waiting, just so they can get one year of decent gaming? And then start the cycle again? And just hope that people won't just subscribe to gamepass for the one in five years or so that they get the bumper crop of games?

And how would this even be good for gamers? What am I supposed to do with 51 'brilliant' games all in the space of 12 months? No normal person would be able to play even a fraction of these in that timeframe! There's a reason publishers stagger their releases over long periods, and don't just dump them all into the marketplace at once.

I.e. your plan would be commercial suicide for Microsoft.

(I won't even mention the absurdly low cost you have put on some of these projects - remaking three or four games in a major franchise all as one bundle would cost a lot more than you suggest!)

It's always good, sure, to make older games more accessible ... but the way people talk about PS3 emulation it's as if it's the Holy Grail or something. If PS3 weren't in some sense the 'lost' generation when it comes to backwards compatibility, would we really be putting it on some kind of pedestal? Yes, it had some good games - I know, I've played every Playstation generation since the first - but I find it hard to get that excited about revisiting games from decades ago. Plus, I'm drowning in a huge backlog of games from just the last few years as it is, who even has time to spend precious gaming time on all these aging games from the past?

This isn't really aimed at the conventional console market, though - it's not a direct competitor to the PS5. It's a niche product aimed at existing Steam users, who want the extra option of couch gaming alongside their PC gaming. I really doubt the average Playstation user would jump ship to a Steam machine whatever the price - or vice versa. I know there's some overlap, but by and large, PC and Playstation audiences are fairly separate. The fact that both markets have continued to thrive alongside each other partly shows this.

The ones who should be worried are Microsoft - if their next console is indeed basically a PC that includes a Steam store front, then a (probably cheaper) Steam machine could be a serious competitor.

@nessisonett

Actually, most rumours suggest that the PS6 won't be 'exorbitantly' expensive - in fact, it could be less than the PS5 Pro. So, more in the $500-$600 range. Now, the next Xbox probably will be exorbitantly expensive, since it's aiming to be much more powerful.

Historically, Sony has mainly bought studios with which it has strong, close relationships - e.g. Naughty Dog, only after they had made Crash Bandicoot etc. for Playstation in a second-party capacity, and similarly, Insomniac, with Ratchet and Clank etc. As such, they 'fit' with Sony's existing studios and ethos.

Part of the mistake in buying Bungie was that there wasn't that same affinity, and we might also say the same with Microsoft, just buying studios because they can, not because they have any 'natural' fit with the Xbox ecosystem.

All of which is to say, I think Sony is right not to buy up random studios or properties just because they are superficially attractive - as the case of Bungie (and, I would argue, Activision and Betheseda) shows, just buying studios with popular IPs doesn't mean you will automatically get great games from them going forward, if you don't really know or understand how to manage them.

What on earth do you people do with your controllers? I've owned every playstation since the first, among other consoles, so have had many controllers over the years - and I've never experienced this so-called stick drift and their batteries have always lasted perfectly fine when fully charged.

Y'all just need to look after your tech a lot better: wipe that cheetos dust off your grubby hands before picking them up and keep them charged between gaming sessions.

@1UP-HUSKY

PS6 is only a couple of years away in all probability, so even if they started making Last of Us 3 today, there's no way it would come out before the next console. However, it could still be a cross-gen PS5/PS6 game if it came out early enough in the PS6 lifespan, since it's only relatively recently with PS5 (as current gen nears its end) that many PS5 games are stopping doing PS4 versions as well.

Not a spectacular number, but still about 6,999,999 more than Xbox.

It's a shame, sure, but honestly, who hasn't bought a PS5 yet who wants one? You've had 5 years to get one by now! The PS6 isn't that far off, if you haven't upgraded already, at this point you may as well just wait. Or, if you absolutely must get a PS5 so late in the generation, and want that 1TB storage, just go on ebay, there are plenty of refurbished ones there.

All of which is to say: this really isn't that big a deal for a console that's been around so long.

@The_ghostmen

Why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh? To take one of your examples: God of War Ragnarok sold 5.1 million copies in its first week of sale, the fastest-selling first party game in Playstation history. By 2023, a year after launch, it had sold over 15 million copies - way more than 50% of the 23 million copies the 2018 game had sold (by 2022). Similarly, Spiderman 2 broke Playstation records by selling 2.5 million copies in 24 hours.

I have zero interest in live service games, and don't much care about movie, TV, comic book spinoffs etc. However, people need to pay attention to the final paragraph of this article - Playstation makes most of its money from microtransactions from a handful of (live service) games: Fortnite, Genshin Impact etc.

So, while I personally love Sony's single player games, everyone needs to understand that these are not the ones that make the really big profits. However well a God of War, Last of Us or Gran Turismo sells, they are never going to generate the billions of dollars of revenue that live service games make. Like it or not, this is a cold, hard fact.

As such, it makes complete sense for Sony to continue to pursue a live service strategy, regardless of how badly Concord and others have failed. And that's fine with me, as long as this subsidises single player games along the way. I'll never play any of these live service games myself, but if Sony can get enough whales to drop thousands of dollars on them to keep Playstation profitable, I'm very happy to see this happen.

And as long as there are other studios making great single player games too (like Clair Obscura, say) that I can play on my Playstation, who cares if they are first, second or third party?

@KillerBoy

I'd see that this is different even to an example like Palworld, say - which only 'borrows' Pokemon designs, not plot or overall gameplay. Here, we're looking at such a blatant rip-off of so many aspects of Sony's game that almost ANY company would sue over it. This isn't just some Nintendo 'over reaction'.

@bazchillin

What on earth are you talking about? Most games within a given genre share certain similarities - e.g. every modern FPS still owes huge debts to pioneers like Doom, just as every modern platformer does to early examples like Mario. But you honestly can't see a difference between games that share certain mechanics and conventions and a wholesale rip-off of a game's design, aesthetic and basic plot?

And what previous games actually share a similar plot or design to Horizon anyway, which make you claim Sony games have no originality? Of course, there are elements of Monster Hunter, and other third-person open world/adventure games in there, but as a gamer of many decades, I found it to be a pretty original take on the post-apocalypse genre.

@Balaam_

"...was terrified I would accidentally hit that little flashing icon placed so precariously close to the trophy button"

Eh? Just because you 'accidentally' hit the Stars button on your phone doesn't somehow automatically start up a game on your console and pop a trophy that you didn't want.

In any case, I'm also a trophy hunter who cares about my 100%s, but Stars was never a problem for this. It mostly only ever required you to start a game, get to the title screen and then back out. I did this loads of times, got the reward, and then deleted the 0% game from my trophy list. What was the problem with this?

We seem to have settled into a standard pattern now in comments sections with every new hardware reveal - 'nobody wants it', 'doesn't do anything new', 'over-priced', 'I'm sticking with current gen' etc. etc.

And yet, when the hardware comes out, they still sell like gangbusters - PS5 (even though it 'has no games' ) continues to sell incredibly well; PS5 Pro, for a niche machine at a relatively high price, has sold many millions; and let's not forget the Portal, which everyone was hating on from the moment it was revealed, Sony can't produce enough to meet demand. And outside of Sony, the Switch 2 - not just an 'over-priced' console, but 'over-priced' games! - is fastest selling console of all time.

What this all shows is the major disconnect between the moaners and whingers on Internet forums and the majority of actual gamers. Personally, I can't wait to upgrade to PS6 - I love shiny new toys - and will definitely be preordering.

As a tip: if every comment you post online is a whinge or complaint, maybe find a different hobby? No one's forcing you to be a videogamer, there's a world of other hobbies out there.

If you check out Stichting Massaschade & Consument's website, you'll see that they have also launched class action lawsuits against Airbnb, TikTok and Google - so they clearly have some kind of strategy of going for some of the biggest, wealthiest companies. The Google and Tiktok cases are about privacy and the use of users' information, and they are similarly seeking compensation.

Also, while they themselves are a non-profit, litigation is financed by a company called Omni Bridgeway - who take 20-25% of any successful claim. So, while the company may be motivated by high-minded ideals of helping consumers, their backers are obviously hoping to use these cases to strike it rich.

Anyway, there's some basic journalistic research for you all.

@trev666

Let's be fair, everyone was comparing it to GTA beforehand - and the co-CEO of Mindseye's studio insinuating that Rockstar was paying people to post negative comments didn't help in dispelling the idea that it saw itself as in direct competition.

Also, not sure why you're criticising others for not making up their own minds about a game first - isn't the whole reason we're all here to read someone else's review before we decide whether or not to buy it? Isn't that what reviews are for?

I have a family of 4 myself! Not Michelin star, obviously, but a Nando's or Pizza Hut, you can just about do £50-ish. But still, what are you buying for home eating that costs £50 a day?

@PlatinumMikey

I love my Pro as well, but are you seriously spending £350 a week on food shopping??? You could have a family takeaway/restaurant meal every night for that much!

@Matroska

I don't disagree, but this wasn't the main point of the article - as the title indicates, the supposed 'surprise' is that people are still willing to pay for a game, when they could get it for 'free' on a subscription service. All I was pointing out is that this is based on fallacious reasoning - unless you own both consoles (which I don't think most people do), the choice is effectively made for you. As a PS5 owner, I simply have no choice but to pay for the game if I want to play it.

A lot of strange logic in this article. Like many (most?) gamers, I only own one of the two consoles you can play this on - in my case, a PS5. As such, there was no choice involved - I bought the game because I don't own an Xbox or have Gamepass. However, if it had been 'free' on PS Plus, I might have played it through the subscription instead.

In other words, the figures quoted don't really prove anything about the viability/desirability of the different ways to access the game - it simply comes down to which ecosystem you happen to have chosen to be in.

@PlatinumMikey

Think you meant this as a reply to someone else?

@batosaims

Some of this may be true, I'm happy to admit to this. However, post-Activsion, I don't think Microsoft could allow Xbox just to survive as a 'niche' console while keeping its games exlusive - the cost of all the studios they now own means they simply have to go third-party, I would think.

As for Sony, it's main competitor is probably now Nintendo, so it will be interesting to see if the Switch 2 - which seems to be getting a lot of newer third-party games as well - will keep Sony more on its toes.

@batosaims

Not sure what you have against Death Stranding or why you think it's a dud - at any rate, no one ever said it was going to shift consoles or subscriptions, so not sure what the comparison is here.

As for Sony exclusives, yes, we'd all like more, but you're conveniently ignoring successes like Astrobot, Helldivers or Stellar Blade, and upcoming titles like Ghost of Yotei, Wolverine, Interstellar ... and Death Stranding 2.

But more to the point, what is remarkable is how PS5 continues to dominate without that many exclusives, yet Xbox is struggling despite all the new games coming. As I said before, it's hard to know if anything could save Xbox at this point. I say this not because I want it to fail, but purely as an objective observation.

@batosaims

On Starfield - come on, you're reading history backwards here. At the time, hype levels were through the roof ... and yet still it didn't help shift Xboxes (regardless of how good it was or wasn't)

On COD - the fact that it is 'free' on Game Pass v. full price on Playstation, and yet still most console players opt for Playstation, surely raises the question of what on earth game do you think would get people to go Xbox over Playstation? Sure, COD may not be exclusive, but it is way bigger than any of the other games you list, so I think it's fair to be sceptical that if the prospect of getting COD for 'free' isn't boosting Xbox sales, then would any of these other games do so even if they were exclusive?

Of course, we're never going to know any of this now for certain, as Microsoft has already chosen the third-party publishing path.

@batosaims

I think you are forgetting that it is precisely because none of their recent exclusives managed to move the needle for Xbox that Microsoft has been forced to go third-party. Remember Starfield? The game that die-hard Xbox fans were so confident was going to be a game changer for the console? Or consider the latest Call of Duty - the biggest franchise Microsoft owns - that still failed to boost Gamepass subs in any meaningful way. In other words, at this point, it's hard to know what could stop Xbox console sales from nosediving, and stubbornly keeping its games exclusive would just mean Microsoft leaving money on the table. Let's be honest, Sony's balls are safe!

As a Playstation gamer, I guess this is all good news - though most Microsoft titles don't really interest me. But I wonder about Microsoft's strategy here - flooding the Playstation market with so many titles in such a relatively short time frame, aren't they going to cannibalise their own sales? I know they've been relatively successful so far, but now the novelty of playing Xbox games on Sony's machine has worn off, I wonder if some of these games are just going to sell a lot more softly.

@SMJ

Lego Horizon Adventures?

Comments section full of dinosaurs! Sold all my physical media years ago, never regretted it. So many new games to play, no need to hold onto the past. Declutter your lives, people, you really don't need all that stuff to be happy.

Many years ago, my parents rented their TV and VCR, and it used to be common for people to rent other electronics as well. This all died out with rising average wages and generally cheaper consumer goods making it less and less necessary.

So, I doubt there will be a huge market for this scheme, but I can see various use cases - e.g. rent a PS5 for 6 months, play all the games you want and then give it back. But as a long-term proposition, I'm not sure many will want to overpay like this.

@themightyant

Ok, ok, I was being pernickety!

Still, I'm one of those people who quite likes the Ubisoft formula (Far Cry and Assassin's Creed). I don't want all games to be like this, but they are the gaming equivalent of fast food - a quick sugar rush from completing each activity on the map etc. isn't always a bad thing. They're usually very slick and with solid mechanics, and nothing too challenging or complicated ... in between more demanding games, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

@jberg

That's still only six. And to be fair, Blood Dragon and Primal are somewhat different to the mainline entries.

@themightyant

Well, there have only been three games since Far Cry 3, so how can there be SEVEN games the same?

I was commenting on the hyperbole - it's only a video game, for goodness' sake! To describe its inclusion on PS Plus as 'insane' or 'shocking' is ridiculous. Now, the meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy, that was insane and shocking...

@Th3solution

Think you missed my point. I was simply highlighting how people suddenly seem to change their tune when a game becomes 'free' on PS Plus, just because it's AAA. Everyone hates on the service when they give out highly rated, but smaller games, and is constantly clamouring for bigger titles. So when they do add a AAA title, people just seem inordinately grateful, regardless of the quality. But, as I said, being free doesn't change a game's quality - and in this case, it simply isn't a very good game (whatever Metacritic says; don't let some meaningless average dictate your opinions for you.)

Calling this lineup 'insane' and 'shocking' is pretty crazy itself - unless you have a very low bar for being shocked, I suppose.

And funny how happy everyone seems to be about getting a game so few people were willing actually to pay for and which has been roundly criticised all over the Internet. A rubbish game is still rubbish regardless of whether or not it's 'free'.

Games are - taking into account inflation - cheaper today than they were in the 80s and 90s. No one likes paying £70/$70 for new games, but if you want big AAA games to be made then you need to be willing to pay for them. If not, just buy all the super-cheap indies you can also get on the PS store; or, much older AAA games.

Moreover, if you somehow force big developers to charge lower upfront prices, all this means is that there will be more egregious and in-your-face microtransactions.

@Drago201

Permanently online whingers on social media think it sucks, but I'd guess that most ordinary gamers are more than happy - witness PS5's incredible sales figures. Most people don't know/don't care about, say, the implosion of Sony's live service strategy or lack of first party games that social media nerds obsess about, they're just happy to get on with playing the 100s of games that are available (first, second or third party).

@Matroska

First, the price of PS+ is irrelevant – this stays the same whether I bought a Pro or not, just as the money I spend on any games does.

Second, if I follow your logic, then it still works out very well. On your way of looking at things, I got four years of PS5 gaming for £150, which is a pretty good deal. And when the PS6 comes out, and I sell my Pro (let’s say, for £400), then I will have had three/four years of PS5 Pro gaming for £300, which is also pretty good. And so on into the future.

Third, though, I just don’t agree with your basic argument. When I buy a new car and trade in my old one to get money off, no one says, well, actually, you just got money off the price of your original car, not the new one. This is effectively what I did with my base PS5 (even if I had to use ebay, rather than Sony directly giving me the money as a discount). And as I established in point 2, if I keep doing this every generation – which I also did with previous PS generations – then I think it’s fair to treat this in the colloquial way of saying that I got money off the new one.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it, I’m very happy with my Pro, and enjoying all its benefits.

@LifeGirl

It's not about graphics being 'clearer' - it's about the higher frame rates. If I can play more games at 60fps (maybe even 120fps) over 30fps, then it's definitely worth it.

As for price, yes, it's expensive, but I sold my base model for £300 on Ebay, knocking it down considerably. When PS6 comes out, I'll sell the Pro and recoup even more of the cost. It's the circle of (console) life!

I'm sure this is all very meaningful to someone, but I'm struggling to care ... The only question that matters is: is a game good or not? What difference does it make to your enjoyment if Sony calls it first, second or third party?

How many more articles are you going to produce from trawling through this one interview? Also, I know you give the link to the podcast, but if it's worth four articles (so far), you could explicitly credit Colin Moriarty for the interview.

In 2026, the Playstation 6 will probably be only a year or two away from being released, and yet there are people on here still expecting Sony to be supporting the PS4? If it isn't already, the PS4 will basically be a legacy console by then.

Honestly, the PS5 will be over five years old by then. A base PS5 really isn't that expensive - you can grab one used for under £200/$200, and sell your old PS4 for a few pounds/dollars as well - so there really isn't any reason not to have upgraded by now.

I have no interest in GTA 6 personally, but to all the people expressing shock and horror at $100, do you not live in the real world? In 2025, how much do you think $100 is actually worth? A family meal at a restaurant or trip to the cinema and you won't be getting much change from this, I can tell you. Realistically, it's a pretty fair price for a game that will give you 100s of hours of entertainment - what else can you buy for $100 that will give you that?

They better all be PS5 Pro enhanced - can't wait for Playstation to be the best console to play Microsoft games!

@Slippship

It'll be a cold day in hell before Sony puts its flagship games on Xbox

My wife's parents were of a generation that always used to fully turn off and unplug their TV, video etc. at night - I'm talking up until 5-10 years ago - which I always found hilariously old-fashioned. So who are these crazy people who fully shut down a games console in 2025 - time travellers from the 1950s? I can't even remember the last time I fully switched off my PS5.

From what Hulst says in the interview, you may as well say 'Sony doubles down on single player games.' The fact is that they are going to continue making both single-player and live-service games ... and why not? I have zero interest in live-service games, but if they help keep playstation profitable - and therefore able to continue making high-quality single-player games - then carry on milking those people willing to pay $20 for a piece of cosmetic dlc, etc.

@yohn777

Just a couple of points:
1. It's pretty common for multiplayer games to have short campaigns - just look at COD - so the fact that Killzone's may have been only 10 hours long is not uncommon, and doesn't mean it wasn't AAA.
2. For the rest, it feels like you are shooting the messenger. I would love it if Sony experimented more with smaller and more unusual titles - but those days are (like it or not) long gone. Today's Sony is pretty much only interested in making big budget AAA games which sell millions of copies - which is why people need to accept that most of these dormant franchises are probably not coming back, at least not from its own first-party studios.

@DiggleDog

Sure, but it's 2024, not 2004. If you want smaller games, there are plenty of indies out there - which I often play, too - just don't expect Sony (or Microsoft) to make them themselves.