None of this answers the question of why these dormant franchises went dormant - which is, fundamentally, that they weren't selling!
To pick up on Killzone - this was a AAA, first-party franchise (touted by some as a 'Halo Killer', so of course it was expected to sell well; it wasn't some tiny indie game. No need to throw around ridiculous figures like 100 million units, let's just compare to, as you mention, Horizon. Zero Dawn has sold just over 24 million units - ten times what Killzone games used to sell.
As such, it's no surprise at all that Sony has no real interest in reviving it, and the same goes for many of its other past games. Personally, I used to like games like, say, Sly Cooper, and every so often a remaster - or even a lower budget sequel - might pop out (either by Sony or whoever). But the truth remains that these sorts of games don't sell very well today (unless you're Nintendo), so anyone expecting big revivals (other than remasters) for most old Sony IPs will probably be waiting a very long time.
Let's be honest, although nostalgists on the Internet are constantly clamouring for reviving these old franchises, the fundamental reason Sony stopped making most of them is that they just didn't sell very well. Take Killzone: a quick google shows that none of the six Killzone titles sold over 3 million copies, most considerably fewer.
And while Astrobot is a really nice 'throwback' title, part of the reason it did so well is the novelty - if we were suddenly to get a glut of platformers again a la the PS1-PS3 days, I'd bet most would sink without a trace.
The truth is, most of the time it's best to leave nostalgia in the past. I'd much rather time and effort went into developing newer games, not just rehashing older games I've already played.
A small sample of either full or timed PS console exclusives from 2nd and 3rd parties for 2024: Stellar Blade, Black Myth, Helldivers 2, Silent Hill 2, Rise of the Ronin, Pacific Drive etc. etc.
Some of these have/will also come to PC - just like Final Fantasy games - but it's pretty clear that plenty of non-Sony studios are more than happy to sign deals with Sony to produce timed or full exclusives for them.
This analysis simply doesn't understand that Nintendo isn't really a direct competitor to Sony and Microsoft anymore - the Switch exists in its own, separate bubble that doesn't attempt to be the most powerful console in the world. As such, while I might agree that there isn't room for three high-powered consoles, there IS room for two of these plus the Switch. Like many households I would guess, I own one of the two 'big boys' (a PS5) AND a Switch, and see them as very different machines.
Even with the more powerful Switch 2, I don't think the badic equation will change - the next Playstation and Xbox will still be more powerful and cater to different use cases and types of games.
This said, it's not impossible that Microsoft will exit the console manufacturing space in the next 5-10 years (after the next, possibly last Xbox). But if it does, I wonder if some other company might come into fill the gap?
The amount of moaning and whining in the comments here is becoming almost unbearable.
If people really feel this negatively, then either a) switch to PC, and let's see you build a similarly specced machine as the Pro for the same price, or b) just swap to a different hobby, videogames don't seem to be giving you much pleasure any more.
Either way, the Playstation community would be a better place without all the cry-babies.
Anyway, personally, can't wait for the Pro to arrive next week ... you know, because gaming is meant to be fun, and you should be happy about it!
'Sales never = greatness' Well, that's just not true - plenty of great games sell well, including Playstation games like the Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima, Spiderman and, yes, Horizon.
And sales numbers clearly indicate, I'm afraid, that the majority don't agree with you - the audience for Killzone was always relatively small, it's only a vocal minority who keep asking for it to be brought back. But what matters to games developers is not what people ask for on the Internet, but what they are actually willing to open their wallets for to buy - which (again) clearly isn't Killzone games.
Yes, but very few people seem to agree with you. Consider: no Killzone game ever sold more than 3 million copies (most sold closer to 2 million). By contrast, Horizon Zero Dawn has sold over 24 million copies. Why on earth would Guerilla swap back to a franchise that sells about 90% less?
I always find it funny how, in hindsight, even the most mediocre games can become in the eyes of nostalgists a beloved series. Let's be real here, Killzone was always a second, maybe third, tier franchise, never among the elite of FPS games. They never sold that well, or reviewed particularly highly. This is why they stopped making them in the first place!
If everyone who now says they would love to see Killzone return had bought them originally, then the series would still be going. But, of course, this all simply rose-tinted nostalgia talking.
So, no, Sony shouldn't try and resurrect a dead horse. Make something new (and good!) instead.
Think you missed the point of my comment, mate (!). It's a simple fact that console gaming is heading the same way as PC gaming - all your stuff about Windows etc. is, I'm afraid, irrelevant - whether you or I like it or not. Keep all your old hardware as long as you want, fine if that's what you want tobdo, but it doesn't change the fact that future gaming is increasingly moving in an all digital direction.
By way of comparison, I'm old enough to have some nostalgia for the days of going to Blockbusters on a Friday night to rent a movie, for example, but the past is the past, it isn't coming back. Again, like it or not, the future of TV and films is Netflix, Disney+ etc. not physical discs, and the future of gaming is the same.
Look, I still buy physical discs sometimes, alongside digital, but come on guys, you're fighting a losing battle here. The fact that so many people on here keep citing the used disc market - which simply reinforces the point that fewer people are buying discs new, the only purchase that matters (obviously) to games companies - merely shows how weak the arguments for physical have become.
PC went all digital years ago, PS6 and the next Xbox are almost certainly not going to have disc drives included, and the games market itself is clearly headed in an all digital direction. You can moan and whine all you want, but you're not any different to the people who cried over the closing of Blockbusters et al. Whatever the advantages/disadvantages may be, DVDs, Blu Rays and physical games are all going the way of the dinosaurs - come back here in, say, 10 years' time and you'll see how quaint your arguments sound then.
Huh, why should I listen to someone who actually makes games? All the real experts are surely the loudmouth-moaners-who-haven't-even-see-the-PS5-Pro-in-real-life on Twitter, who confidently tell me it is unnecessary, offers no real benefits and no one actually wants it. They're the ones whose views we need to listen to!
In fact, I'm going to cancel my preorder right now!
What difference, truly, will this make? The law may require digital storefronts to be clearer that you are purchasing a license and that you don't actually own a game ... but you will still be purchasing a license and not actually own it. Big whoop!
Most of us on here are probably well aware of this already, but even if you aren't, it's highly unlikely that this law will change either consumer or companies' behaviour. With consumers, the direction of travel has been clear for a long time now - most people simply prefer digital over physical, the numbers very clearly show this. I mean, are PC gamers suddenly going to abandon Steam, Epic etc. and go back to discs? Obviously not, and this is almost certainly the future of console gaming as well.
And what exactly are we expecting companies to do differently either? Stop selling you a license and instead sell you ... what? No company would be foolish enough to claim that a digital purchase means a 100% guarantee that you will always and forever be able to access it (as you might with a physical copy), so why on earth would they put themselves in the legally treacherous position of saying that, yes, you do 'own' it?
Frankly, this is just another law that may sound good on paper, but which will have little material impact.
To everyone banging on about scalpers: yes, of course, this happens - I saw one 30th edn bundle on Ebay at £9999! - but this is a vastly overblown idea. It was the same with the original PS5, when it turned out the vast majority were bought by 'real' consumers.
This is all about people wanting to downplay the fact that the Pro model is just more popular than they want to admit - the whole 'nobody actually wants the PS5 Pro' brigade. It's a niche product, of course, but many of us definitely do want it - and I'm glad I got in my preorder!
Don't fat shame the original PS5!
Anyway, we've wandered far away from the original topic I think. But the one point I would make is that I just don't agree with the narrative that the PS5 doesn't have enough games worth playing. Sure, we'd all like more first party games, but there are plenty of second and third party games that either aren't on PS4 (Stellar Blade, Alan Wake 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Final Fantasy 16 etc.) or play much worse (hello, Cyberpunk!). At any rate, I've been playing mine solidly (and happily) since I got it day one. Roll on PS5 Pro!
Ok, though that's still over twice as slow. Look, I have no problem with people spending their money how they want - but in 2024, it seems a bit odd to be recommending spending money on an upgrade for a PS4 Pro (which only a small % of PS4 players have to begin with), when there's a much more powerful option out there. As I said earlier, save your pennies - and get yourself a cheap used PS5 instead, maybe (especially once the PS5 Pro drops and more used base models will probably enter the market)
But you're happy with 2 minute loading times versus 10 seconds? Not to mention lower frame rates, pop in etc. (check out the full digital foundry review for more).
Some people seem to have this idea that PS5 games are just slightly prettier versions of PS4 ones, but there's a whole host of performance improvements you get as well. Which is why, if you can afford it, you'd be much better off getting the PS5 version.
Which was my point precisely. Use it to play older games for a fraction of their original cost ... but if you can afford to buy newer games at full price, I'd say you are much better off upgrading to PS5 than sticking with PS4 for subpar versions of current gen games
Honestly, people still playing on ancient last gen hardware surely don't buy new, full price titles? At this point, I assumed that these machines are just used to play cheap, older games? I mean, if you can afford new games like this surely you'd just save your pennies and get a PS5?
'... I think we just have different models of console in the same eco-system that have different performance levels but no longer gate content behind a new piece of hardware.'
I mean, not really. Sure, there are more cross-gen titles today, but PS5 still 'gates' plenty of content from the PS4 - whether first or second party games like Spiderman 2, Returnal, Helldivers 2 etc., or third-party ones like Alan Wake 2 or Baldur's Gate 3. And this will only increase over the next few years. It will probably be the same with PS6 - to begin with, quite a few cross-gen games, but there will still be PS6 games you can't play on your PS5, which will grow in number over time. As long as there are consoles, there will likely still be generations and games 'exclusive' to each. Otherwise, new consoles would only ever be 'Pro' versions of preceeding ones, which manufacturers like Sony are well aware sell a small fraction of 'proper' upgrades.
If you're in the UK, you can get one on EE for £88.18 - it's on at £97.99, but they have a 10% discount code (on the website) for some gaming items at the moment. I just ordered one at this price because, yes, I will definitely be getting a Pro
I've been subscribed to extra for a while, but recently cancelled. Not because there aren't good games on the service or that it isn't good value for money (for a rental service), but because I realised that the 'stress' of trying to make sure that I played the games I wanted to before they are removed, outweighs the value of any monetary savings I might make. So, personally, in future I will just stick to paying for the games I want - usually on sale - and play them at my own pace.
I don't play them myself, and as I say, the vast majority do seem to fail. But I still hear about the hits, and 'new' ones do still happen; from the last few years - COD: Warzone, Overwatch 2, Genshin Impact. Heck, Sony's own hit, Helldivers 2, must count, though I know player numbers have fallen off since launch. Anyway, just consider Genshin Impact, which absolutely prints money - $1 billion every six months (so says google). This is crazy money, which no single player game can hope to match. So, of course companies like Sony are going to want their own golden goose. We may wish that it wasn't so, but it is.
Like it or not, a successful live service game can generate far more long-term revenue than most single-player games could ever dream of - this is why so many companies keep chasing them. A single player game usually makes the vast majority of its money in the first few weeks, maybe months, of its release, whereas a successful live service game keeps making money for years to come. Compare, say, Fortnite to any big Sony single player game - God of War, Spiderman, Last of Us etc. We may all think that the latter are better games, but they (the first ones in these series) made their money for Sony years ago, which is why Sony has to keep making sequels to make more money from them. Fortnite, by contrast, keeps on making a shedload of money year after year after year. So, live service games are actually very different risk propositions to single player ones - high risk/high reward. Most inevitably fail, but the ones that hit big hit reaaaalllly big, generating billions of dollars. I, personally, have no interest in them, but I understand why Sony and others keep taking punts on them.
Not really. Personally, I was pretty happy with Sony's style of output - third-person, story driven - as there are plenty of third-party publishers for other genres (like FPS and multiplayer). And it's never been entirely true anyway - Gran Turismo, Returnal, Ratchet and Clank are a few that aren't in the same mold. Most to the point, I don't think anyone who was asking Sony for something different meant generic-looking live service games.
If only they would release a DLC that allowed you to play as the RDA, so you could go around exterminating all the tree-hugging, mystic mumbo-jumbo spouting blue aliens, it would definitely be a Day One purchase for me. Victory to the humans!
This is just a rehash of an article from Eurogamer! If I wanted to read it, I'd read it there. Summarising another website's game preview does not an original article make!
I think you underestimate massively here. There's every chance 'true green Xbox' games like Halo, Gears and Fable will be going to Playstation - Halo and Gears doing so are some of the biggest rumours circulating.
Even with the biggest hype games you mention - like Indiana Jones - no, probably not day one (yet), but they could go over a lot sooner than you think. I'd say Starfield is a dead cert, and Indiana Jones could easily be within a year of release.
My view is that, now the genie's out of the bottle, and Xbox fans have already gone through all their rage and anger, there's not much reason for Microsoft to hold back. Again, not that everything will immediately be day one - though some games might soon be - but now the floodgates are open, the trickle will soon become a torrent.
Not the greatest month, sure, but I feel people have a wrong idea of what PS Plus is for. If you're expecting lots of (recent) AAA games, then you're bound to be disappointed. But if you treat it as a way to explore smaller, less well-known games you might not otherwise play, then it's a really great service. For example, recently I've played and enjoyed Sea of Stars, The Last Stop, Tinykins, Call of the Sea and others - many of which I probably wouldn't have paid for.
This month, Dredge is the standout example - and for what amounts to a few pounds/dollars a month, how is this not very good value?
This is ridiculous, my attention span is just ... wait, is this a list of twenty celebrities from the 1990s, you won't believe what they look like now! Better just check this out ... oh, hang on a minute, now I need to read this list of ten best fruits in video games, ranked! ... Sorry, I've got to go now, there's a Tiktok life hack video I need to watch telling me I can absolutely, definitely lose weight by drinking a litre of vinegar with every meal ...
Really odd choice of words in the title - 'glut' means an excessive amount of something, more than is needed or wanted. Don't think that really applies to Sony's recent, or probably future, release schedule.
Seems to me there're a lot of very short-sighted comments on here. Everyone knows - or should know - that standard game prices have significantly failed to keep up with inflation over the decades, but if they had, prices we were paying back in the 1980s/90s would now mean AAA games would realistically be more like £80 or £90 (not £70).
But since gamers are unwilling to shell out more than £70 for games - even then, there are howls of complaint - companies have limited choices to recoup their costs. This is why we get the hated microtransactions, season passes etc., even in single player games.
Given this, I have no problem with companies putting out these seemingly expensive special editions - that no one is forcing you to buy - to make back some of their costs from the small minority willing to pay for them, so that everyone else can still get their (under-priced) games at £70. All you usually lose out on are some meaningless cosmetics or, as here, a single side mission from a game - if typically Ubisoft - that will be overstuffed with them anyway.
Personally, I never spend more than around £25 tops on games in any case - I just either wait a few months or buy second-hand - but I still understand how the economics of modern game pricing work, which I think people should consider a bit more deeply before ranting aimlessly.
Not sure what commenters on here are getting so upset about. PS5 came out in November 2020, meaning it's over 3 years old, and will be hitting its 4 year anniversary later on. Which ever way you cut it, it is coming up to the midway point in its life cycle.
Personally, I've had a great time with it over that period. Yes, there should have been more PS5 only games, but there is a good number: Ratchet and Clank, Returnal, Spiderman 2 etc. Plus, cross-gen games usually run at higher frame rates and resolution.
Even so, I can't wait for a new iteration - PS5 Pro or PS6. Four years is a long time in technology terms, and many people don't bat an eyelid at spending at least the price of a games console on a new phone much more frequently. The PS5 will still be supported for many years to come, but for those who can afford it, a new machine that supports at least 60fps and 4K on all games as standard can't come soon enough.
Not sure how you can criticise the PS4 for being 'sluggish' with a straight face while touting the virtues of PS3. Try syncing trophies or accessing the PS store on PS3, the very definitions of sluggish!
It's one thing to be deliberately contrary to try to get attention, but trying to claim in 2023 that PS3 is better than PS4 or PS5 is really pushing it ... I've been a playstation gamer since PS1, and there's no way I'd go back to the pre-PS4/5 eras. Time to stop living in the past!
I've played every ps console since ps1, and whenever I bought a third-party controller (for 1 and 2), it was always a substandard, compromised piece of tech. So, since ps3, I've always stuck with official ones.
Point being .... it's generally a false economy to buy a cheap knock-off alternative, and I don't really mind Sony (or Microsoft or Nintendo) being protective of their controller tech. If you're able to splash out £300-400 on a console, it's almost always worth paying (or saving up) for official peripherals.
Funny, I've been playing since the 1980s, too. But still ... you must've heard of the Plague Tales games, at least? I haven't played any of the three games either - so I dont know if they're good or bad - but Plague Tale (and Evil West) are fairly well known.
@naruball Glad you enjoy them, but both Age of Magic and Mirrorverse are pretty egregious at trying to squeeze money out players. Like so many mobile games that seem fun for a few hours, you quickly hit the point where you have to start spending real money, either to avoid tedious grinding, or simply to progress. This is why most gamers hate on mobile games.
Every so often, I've tried getting into mobile games as well, but the decent ones always start bludgeoning you around the head with demands for money in one way or another
I've been amazed at how good the portal actually is - no one needs it, but if you want it, go for it! I assumed it would only be good for puzzle and turn-based sorts of games, but the proper dualsense controllers and nice, large screen make it pretty viable for action games as well (if you have a decent router an WiFi connection). I don't think you want to be using it for competitive multiplayer (there's always going to be some lag), but I've been loving my second playthrough of Dead Space in bed and on the couch.
Comments 114
Re: Sony Promises It Hasn't Abandoned the Famous Franchises from Its Past
@yohn777
None of this answers the question of why these dormant franchises went dormant - which is, fundamentally, that they weren't selling!
To pick up on Killzone - this was a AAA, first-party franchise (touted by some as a 'Halo Killer', so of course it was expected to sell well; it wasn't some tiny indie game. No need to throw around ridiculous figures like 100 million units, let's just compare to, as you mention, Horizon. Zero Dawn has sold just over 24 million units - ten times what Killzone games used to sell.
As such, it's no surprise at all that Sony has no real interest in reviving it, and the same goes for many of its other past games. Personally, I used to like games like, say, Sly Cooper, and every so often a remaster - or even a lower budget sequel - might pop out (either by Sony or whoever). But the truth remains that these sorts of games don't sell very well today (unless you're Nintendo), so anyone expecting big revivals (other than remasters) for most old Sony IPs will probably be waiting a very long time.
Re: Sony Promises It Hasn't Abandoned the Famous Franchises from Its Past
Let's be honest, although nostalgists on the Internet are constantly clamouring for reviving these old franchises, the fundamental reason Sony stopped making most of them is that they just didn't sell very well. Take Killzone: a quick google shows that none of the six Killzone titles sold over 3 million copies, most considerably fewer.
And while Astrobot is a really nice 'throwback' title, part of the reason it did so well is the novelty - if we were suddenly to get a glut of platformers again a la the PS1-PS3 days, I'd bet most would sink without a trace.
The truth is, most of the time it's best to leave nostalgia in the past. I'd much rather time and effort went into developing newer games, not just rehashing older games I've already played.
Re: Square Enix Insists Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth Hasn't Been the PS5 Sales Disaster It's Been Painted As
@ED_209
A small sample of either full or timed PS console exclusives from 2nd and 3rd parties for 2024: Stellar Blade, Black Myth, Helldivers 2, Silent Hill 2, Rise of the Ronin, Pacific Drive etc. etc.
Some of these have/will also come to PC - just like Final Fantasy games - but it's pretty clear that plenty of non-Sony studios are more than happy to sign deals with Sony to produce timed or full exclusives for them.
Re: Industry Analyst Argues Either Sony or Microsoft Will Need to Exit the Console Market
This analysis simply doesn't understand that Nintendo isn't really a direct competitor to Sony and Microsoft anymore - the Switch exists in its own, separate bubble that doesn't attempt to be the most powerful console in the world. As such, while I might agree that there isn't room for three high-powered consoles, there IS room for two of these plus the Switch. Like many households I would guess, I own one of the two 'big boys' (a PS5) AND a Switch, and see them as very different machines.
Even with the more powerful Switch 2, I don't think the badic equation will change - the next Playstation and Xbox will still be more powerful and cater to different use cases and types of games.
This said, it's not impossible that Microsoft will exit the console manufacturing space in the next 5-10 years (after the next, possibly last Xbox). But if it does, I wonder if some other company might come into fill the gap?
Re: Archetype's Sci-fi Epic Exodus Looks Sick in PS5 Gameplay
It 'looks sick' ... what is this, the 1980s? Is it rad and wicked as well?
Re: PS5 Pro was a '5-Year Project', In Development Before PS5's Launch
The amount of moaning and whining in the comments here is becoming almost unbearable.
If people really feel this negatively, then either a) switch to PC, and let's see you build a similarly specced machine as the Pro for the same price, or b) just swap to a different hobby, videogames don't seem to be giving you much pleasure any more.
Either way, the Playstation community would be a better place without all the cry-babies.
Anyway, personally, can't wait for the Pro to arrive next week ... you know, because gaming is meant to be fun, and you should be happy about it!
Re: PS5, PS4 Fans Are Worried Cash Rewards Have Been Removed from PS Stars
Maybe Sony have finally caught on to the infinite rewards points glitch/exploit?
Re: Sony's Guerrilla Sounds Completely Done with the Killzone Series
@tinCAT-zero
But that's not what you said ... read your own comment?
Re: Sony's Guerrilla Sounds Completely Done with the Killzone Series
@Gewertzx
And?
Re: Sony's Guerrilla Sounds Completely Done with the Killzone Series
@tinCAT-zero
'Sales never = greatness'
Well, that's just not true - plenty of great games sell well, including Playstation games like the Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima, Spiderman and, yes, Horizon.
And sales numbers clearly indicate, I'm afraid, that the majority don't agree with you - the audience for Killzone was always relatively small, it's only a vocal minority who keep asking for it to be brought back. But what matters to games developers is not what people ask for on the Internet, but what they are actually willing to open their wallets for to buy - which (again) clearly isn't Killzone games.
Re: Sony's Guerrilla Sounds Completely Done with the Killzone Series
@tinCAT-zero
Yes, but very few people seem to agree with you. Consider: no Killzone game ever sold more than 3 million copies (most sold closer to 2 million). By contrast, Horizon Zero Dawn has sold over 24 million copies. Why on earth would Guerilla swap back to a franchise that sells about 90% less?
Re: Sony's Guerrilla Sounds Completely Done with the Killzone Series
I always find it funny how, in hindsight, even the most mediocre games can become in the eyes of nostalgists a beloved series. Let's be real here, Killzone was always a second, maybe third, tier franchise, never among the elite of FPS games. They never sold that well, or reviewed particularly highly. This is why they stopped making them in the first place!
If everyone who now says they would love to see Killzone return had bought them originally, then the series would still be going. But, of course, this all simply rose-tinted nostalgia talking.
So, no, Sony shouldn't try and resurrect a dead horse. Make something new (and good!) instead.
Re: Like It or Not, This Is Why PS5 Pro Doesn't Have a Disc Drive
@Vaako007
Think you missed the point of my comment, mate (!). It's a simple fact that console gaming is heading the same way as PC gaming - all your stuff about Windows etc. is, I'm afraid, irrelevant - whether you or I like it or not. Keep all your old hardware as long as you want, fine if that's what you want tobdo, but it doesn't change the fact that future gaming is increasingly moving in an all digital direction.
By way of comparison, I'm old enough to have some nostalgia for the days of going to Blockbusters on a Friday night to rent a movie, for example, but the past is the past, it isn't coming back. Again, like it or not, the future of TV and films is Netflix, Disney+ etc. not physical discs, and the future of gaming is the same.
Re: Like It or Not, This Is Why PS5 Pro Doesn't Have a Disc Drive
Look, I still buy physical discs sometimes, alongside digital, but come on guys, you're fighting a losing battle here. The fact that so many people on here keep citing the used disc market - which simply reinforces the point that fewer people are buying discs new, the only purchase that matters (obviously) to games companies - merely shows how weak the arguments for physical have become.
PC went all digital years ago, PS6 and the next Xbox are almost certainly not going to have disc drives included, and the games market itself is clearly headed in an all digital direction. You can moan and whine all you want, but you're not any different to the people who cried over the closing of Blockbusters et al. Whatever the advantages/disadvantages may be, DVDs, Blu Rays and physical games are all going the way of the dinosaurs - come back here in, say, 10 years' time and you'll see how quaint your arguments sound then.
Re: PS5 Pro 'Absolutely Rocks', According to No Man's Sky Engine Programmer
Huh, why should I listen to someone who actually makes games? All the real experts are surely the loudmouth-moaners-who-haven't-even-see-the-PS5-Pro-in-real-life on Twitter, who confidently tell me it is unnecessary, offers no real benefits and no one actually wants it. They're the ones whose views we need to listen to!
In fact, I'm going to cancel my preorder right now!
Re: Newly Signed Law May Restrict Sony's Use of Terms Like 'Buy' or 'Purchase' for Digital Games
What difference, truly, will this make? The law may require digital storefronts to be clearer that you are purchasing a license and that you don't actually own a game ... but you will still be purchasing a license and not actually own it. Big whoop!
Most of us on here are probably well aware of this already, but even if you aren't, it's highly unlikely that this law will change either consumer or companies' behaviour. With consumers, the direction of travel has been clear for a long time now - most people simply prefer digital over physical, the numbers very clearly show this. I mean, are PC gamers suddenly going to abandon Steam, Epic etc. and go back to discs? Obviously not, and this is almost certainly the future of console gaming as well.
And what exactly are we expecting companies to do differently either? Stop selling you a license and instead sell you ... what? No company would be foolish enough to claim that a digital purchase means a 100% guarantee that you will always and forever be able to access it (as you might with a physical copy), so why on earth would they put themselves in the legally treacherous position of saying that, yes, you do 'own' it?
Frankly, this is just another law that may sound good on paper, but which will have little material impact.
Re: In the UK, PS5 Pro Has Already Completely Sold Out
To everyone banging on about scalpers: yes, of course, this happens - I saw one 30th edn bundle on Ebay at £9999! - but this is a vastly overblown idea. It was the same with the original PS5, when it turned out the vast majority were bought by 'real' consumers.
This is all about people wanting to downplay the fact that the Pro model is just more popular than they want to admit - the whole 'nobody actually wants the PS5 Pro' brigade. It's a niche product, of course, but many of us definitely do want it - and I'm glad I got in my preorder!
Re: Big Tech Cuts Made to Get Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Running on PS4
@sanderson72
Don't fat shame the original PS5!
Anyway, we've wandered far away from the original topic I think. But the one point I would make is that I just don't agree with the narrative that the PS5 doesn't have enough games worth playing. Sure, we'd all like more first party games, but there are plenty of second and third party games that either aren't on PS4 (Stellar Blade, Alan Wake 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Final Fantasy 16 etc.) or play much worse (hello, Cyberpunk!). At any rate, I've been playing mine solidly (and happily) since I got it day one. Roll on PS5 Pro!
Re: Big Tech Cuts Made to Get Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Running on PS4
@sanderson72
Ok, though that's still over twice as slow. Look, I have no problem with people spending their money how they want - but in 2024, it seems a bit odd to be recommending spending money on an upgrade for a PS4 Pro (which only a small % of PS4 players have to begin with), when there's a much more powerful option out there. As I said earlier, save your pennies - and get yourself a cheap used PS5 instead, maybe (especially once the PS5 Pro drops and more used base models will probably enter the market)
Re: Big Tech Cuts Made to Get Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Running on PS4
@nomither6
Hint: it has the words 'Jedi' and 'Survivor' in the title. You know, the subject of the article?
If you didn't manage to get as far as the second paragraph, here's the relevant sentence:
'An initial load into the open zone of Koboh can take over two minutes (10 seconds on PS5)'
Re: Big Tech Cuts Made to Get Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Running on PS4
@LavenderShroud
But you're happy with 2 minute loading times versus 10 seconds? Not to mention lower frame rates, pop in etc. (check out the full digital foundry review for more).
Some people seem to have this idea that PS5 games are just slightly prettier versions of PS4 ones, but there's a whole host of performance improvements you get as well. Which is why, if you can afford it, you'd be much better off getting the PS5 version.
Re: Big Tech Cuts Made to Get Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Running on PS4
@LavenderShroud
If someone is willing to buy lower quality versions of current gen games like Jedi Survivor for their PS4, then presumably they do want PS5 games?
Re: Big Tech Cuts Made to Get Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Running on PS4
@Flaming_Kaiser
Which was my point precisely. Use it to play older games for a fraction of their original cost ... but if you can afford to buy newer games at full price, I'd say you are much better off upgrading to PS5 than sticking with PS4 for subpar versions of current gen games
Re: Big Tech Cuts Made to Get Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Running on PS4
Honestly, people still playing on ancient last gen hardware surely don't buy new, full price titles? At this point, I assumed that these machines are just used to play cheap, older games? I mean, if you can afford new games like this surely you'd just save your pennies and get a PS5?
Re: PS6 Is Already Deep in Development, Backwards Compatibility of High Importance
@Medic_alert
'... I think we just have different models of console in the same eco-system that have different performance levels but no longer gate content behind a new piece of hardware.'
I mean, not really. Sure, there are more cross-gen titles today, but PS5 still 'gates' plenty of content from the PS4 - whether first or second party games like Spiderman 2, Returnal, Helldivers 2 etc., or third-party ones like Alan Wake 2 or Baldur's Gate 3. And this will only increase over the next few years. It will probably be the same with PS6 - to begin with, quite a few cross-gen games, but there will still be PS6 games you can't play on your PS5, which will grow in number over time. As long as there are consoles, there will likely still be generations and games 'exclusive' to each. Otherwise, new consoles would only ever be 'Pro' versions of preceeding ones, which manufacturers like Sony are well aware sell a small fraction of 'proper' upgrades.
Re: Prospective PS5 Pro Buyers Cause Surge in Disc Drive Sales
If you're in the UK, you can get one on EE for £88.18 - it's on at £97.99, but they have a 10% discount code (on the website) for some gaming items at the moment. I just ordered one at this price because, yes, I will definitely be getting a Pro
Re: PS Plus Extra's September Cull Has 4 More Great PS5, PS4 Games Added to It, 16 in Total
I've been subscribed to extra for a while, but recently cancelled. Not because there aren't good games on the service or that it isn't good value for money (for a rental service), but because I realised that the 'stress' of trying to make sure that I played the games I wanted to before they are removed, outweighs the value of any monetary savings I might make. So, personally, in future I will just stick to paying for the games I want - usually on sale - and play them at my own pace.
Re: Forgotten PS Plus Shooter Foamstars Goes Free-to-Play in October
@Jonnyl
I don't play them myself, and as I say, the vast majority do seem to fail. But I still hear about the hits, and 'new' ones do still happen; from the last few years - COD: Warzone, Overwatch 2, Genshin Impact. Heck, Sony's own hit, Helldivers 2, must count, though I know player numbers have fallen off since launch. Anyway, just consider Genshin Impact, which absolutely prints money - $1 billion every six months (so says google). This is crazy money, which no single player game can hope to match. So, of course companies like Sony are going to want their own golden goose. We may wish that it wasn't so, but it is.
Re: Forgotten PS Plus Shooter Foamstars Goes Free-to-Play in October
@SamMR
Like it or not, a successful live service game can generate far more long-term revenue than most single-player games could ever dream of - this is why so many companies keep chasing them. A single player game usually makes the vast majority of its money in the first few weeks, maybe months, of its release, whereas a successful live service game keeps making money for years to come. Compare, say, Fortnite to any big Sony single player game - God of War, Spiderman, Last of Us etc. We may all think that the latter are better games, but they (the first ones in these series) made their money for Sony years ago, which is why Sony has to keep making sequels to make more money from them. Fortnite, by contrast, keeps on making a shedload of money year after year after year. So, live service games are actually very different risk propositions to single player ones - high risk/high reward. Most inevitably fail, but the ones that hit big hit reaaaalllly big, generating billions of dollars. I, personally, have no interest in them, but I understand why Sony and others keep taking punts on them.
Re: Reaction: It's Time for Xbox to Tell Us Which Games It's Bringing to PS5, and Which Games It Isn't
@bowzoid
Good grief, you know that 'bill gats' hasn't been Microsoft CEO since 2014?
Re: Round Up: Concord PS5 Previews Seem Torn on Sony's New Shooter
@BeerIsAwesome
Not really. Personally, I was pretty happy with Sony's style of output - third-person, story driven - as there are plenty of third-party publishers for other genres (like FPS and multiplayer). And it's never been entirely true anyway - Gran Turismo, Returnal, Ratchet and Clank are a few that aren't in the same mold. Most to the point, I don't think anyone who was asking Sony for something different meant generic-looking live service games.
Re: PS Plus Extra, Premium Lose 6 Games in Next Month's Update
@Member_the_game
If you haven't played any of them, surely that's a reason for giving one or two a try? Anyway, Tiny Tina is pretty fun, for example.
Re: Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora DLC The Sky Breaker Pierces PS5 in July
If only they would release a DLC that allowed you to play as the RDA, so you could go around exterminating all the tree-hugging, mystic mumbo-jumbo spouting blue aliens, it would definitely be a Day One purchase for me. Victory to the humans!
Re: Scathing Star Wars Outlaws PS5 Previews Unfavourably Compare Gameplay to PS Vita's Uncharted: Golden Abyss
This is just a rehash of an article from Eurogamer! If I wanted to read it, I'd read it there. Summarising another website's game preview does not an original article make!
Re: Xbox Bigwig Confirms Many More Microsoft Games Are Coming to PS5
@Fyz306903
You honestly think there will still be an Xbox in 10 years??? One more generation, yes, but I'd be amazed at anymore afterwards
Re: Xbox Bigwig Confirms Many More Microsoft Games Are Coming to PS5
@MrGawain
I think you underestimate massively here. There's every chance 'true green Xbox' games like Halo, Gears and Fable will be going to Playstation - Halo and Gears doing so are some of the biggest rumours circulating.
Even with the biggest hype games you mention - like Indiana Jones - no, probably not day one (yet), but they could go over a lot sooner than you think. I'd say Starfield is a dead cert, and Indiana Jones could easily be within a year of release.
My view is that, now the genie's out of the bottle, and Xbox fans have already gone through all their rage and anger, there's not much reason for Microsoft to hold back. Again, not that everything will immediately be day one - though some games might soon be - but now the floodgates are open, the trickle will soon become a torrent.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for June 2024 Announced
Not the greatest month, sure, but I feel people have a wrong idea of what PS Plus is for. If you're expecting lots of (recent) AAA games, then you're bound to be disappointed. But if you treat it as a way to explore smaller, less well-known games you might not otherwise play, then it's a really great service. For example, recently I've played and enjoyed Sea of Stars, The Last Stop, Tinykins, Call of the Sea and others - many of which I probably wouldn't have paid for.
This month, Dredge is the standout example - and for what amounts to a few pounds/dollars a month, how is this not very good value?
Re: Bombshell Report Finds Players Becoming Less Interested in Deep Strategy Games
This is ridiculous, my attention span is just ... wait, is this a list of twenty celebrities from the 1990s, you won't believe what they look like now! Better just check this out ... oh, hang on a minute, now I need to read this list of ten best fruits in video games, ranked! ... Sorry, I've got to go now, there's a Tiktok life hack video I need to watch telling me I can absolutely, definitely lose weight by drinking a litre of vinegar with every meal ...
Re: It Really Sounds Like the Next Glut of Big PS5 Reveals Is Coming Soon
Really odd choice of words in the title - 'glut' means an excessive amount of something, more than is needed or wanted. Don't think that really applies to Sony's recent, or probably future, release schedule.
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Fans Irate Over Alleged Censorship
Removed
Re: Ubisoft Responds to Star Wars Outlaws Exclusive Jabba the Hutt Boondoggle
Seems to me there're a lot of very short-sighted comments on here. Everyone knows - or should know - that standard game prices have significantly failed to keep up with inflation over the decades, but if they had, prices we were paying back in the 1980s/90s would now mean AAA games would realistically be more like £80 or £90 (not £70).
But since gamers are unwilling to shell out more than £70 for games - even then, there are howls of complaint - companies have limited choices to recoup their costs. This is why we get the hated microtransactions, season passes etc., even in single player games.
Given this, I have no problem with companies putting out these seemingly expensive special editions - that no one is forcing you to buy - to make back some of their costs from the small minority willing to pay for them, so that everyone else can still get their (under-priced) games at £70. All you usually lose out on are some meaningless cosmetics or, as here, a single side mission from a game - if typically Ubisoft - that will be overstuffed with them anyway.
Personally, I never spend more than around £25 tops on games in any case - I just either wait a few months or buy second-hand - but I still understand how the economics of modern game pricing work, which I think people should consider a bit more deeply before ranting aimlessly.
Re: PS5 Is Entering the 'Latter Stages of Its Life Cycle', Says Sony
Not sure what commenters on here are getting so upset about. PS5 came out in November 2020, meaning it's over 3 years old, and will be hitting its 4 year anniversary later on. Which ever way you cut it, it is coming up to the midway point in its life cycle.
Personally, I've had a great time with it over that period. Yes, there should have been more PS5 only games, but there is a good number: Ratchet and Clank, Returnal, Spiderman 2 etc. Plus, cross-gen games usually run at higher frame rates and resolution.
Even so, I can't wait for a new iteration - PS5 Pro or PS6. Four years is a long time in technology terms, and many people don't bat an eyelid at spending at least the price of a games console on a new phone much more frequently. The PS5 will still be supported for many years to come, but for those who can afford it, a new machine that supports at least 60fps and 4K on all games as standard can't come soon enough.
Re: There Are More People Playing PS5, PS4 Than Ever Before
@zekepliskin
Not sure how you can criticise the PS4 for being 'sluggish' with a straight face while touting the virtues of PS3. Try syncing trophies or accessing the PS store on PS3, the very definitions of sluggish!
It's one thing to be deliberately contrary to try to get attention, but trying to claim in 2023 that PS3 is better than PS4 or PS5 is really pushing it ... I've been a playstation gamer since PS1, and there's no way I'd go back to the pre-PS4/5 eras. Time to stop living in the past!
Re: Sony Hit with French Fine for Allegedly Manipulating PS4 Controller Market
I've played every ps console since ps1, and whenever I bought a third-party controller (for 1 and 2), it was always a substandard, compromised piece of tech. So, since ps3, I've always stuck with official ones.
Point being .... it's generally a false economy to buy a cheap knock-off alternative, and I don't really mind Sony (or Microsoft or Nintendo) being protective of their controller tech. If you're able to splash out £300-400 on a console, it's almost always worth paying (or saving up) for official peripherals.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for January 2024 Announced
@Member_the_game
Fair enough - have fun playing them then!
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for January 2024 Announced
@Member_the_game
Funny, I've been playing since the 1980s, too.
But still ... you must've heard of the Plague Tales games, at least? I haven't played any of the three games either - so I dont know if they're good or bad - but Plague Tale (and Evil West) are fairly well known.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for January 2024 Announced
@Member_the_game
Seriously?!? Have you only just started playing video games or something?
Re: Reaction: PlayStation's Finally Poised to Penetrate the Mobile Market in the Right Way
@naruball Glad you enjoy them, but both Age of Magic and Mirrorverse are pretty egregious at trying to squeeze money out players. Like so many mobile games that seem fun for a few hours, you quickly hit the point where you have to start spending real money, either to avoid tedious grinding, or simply to progress. This is why most gamers hate on mobile games.
Every so often, I've tried getting into mobile games as well, but the decent ones always start bludgeoning you around the head with demands for money in one way or another
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
I've been amazed at how good the portal actually is - no one needs it, but if you want it, go for it! I assumed it would only be good for puzzle and turn-based sorts of games, but the proper dualsense controllers and nice, large screen make it pretty viable for action games as well (if you have a decent router an WiFi connection). I don't think you want to be using it for competitive multiplayer (there's always going to be some lag), but I've been loving my second playthrough of Dead Space in bed and on the couch.
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
@Mreeezie "more like they would be saying my wife isn't beautiful enough, while she is."
Pics or didn't happen