To me this sounds like Sony isn't going to invest as much in new IPs anymore and instead start focusing on currently established IPs. I believe we talked about this a while back @NEStalgia on an article and it seems to be the case now. I mean, I guess that's what happens when your games cost that much to develop. Not to mention that if they are already so popular and are earning you that much money, then the safe bet would be to continue "milking" them so to speak. It's going to be interesting to see how this will develop in the future.
@LtSarge uggh! I really, really, really detest that man. He's too least being cagey and hedging on "balancing" new ip to old ip. But it he tries to hammer in "more than $100m" one more time... Maybe set your budgets accordingly instead of spending whatever you want and demanding people pay for it, you wouldn't have a problem.
And it's refrain of "box office release"....i really want to know his background. He's a mysterious figure with little public history. But the way he talks, i still keep getting the feeling he came in through Hollywood on the Columbia/Sony Pictures side. He talks like a film guy. He acts like a film guy. He budgets like a film guy. He runs the company like it's a film company.
He's the quintessential american entertainment executive. If it sells, make more of it until it stops selling. Look over your shoulder and do whatever the other guys are doing. Spencer,. Iwata, Yoshida, Layden are/were gaming execs that understand gaming, it's market, and the undercurrents. Ryan is an entertainment executive. Like Kottick, Riccitiello, and Matrick.
I really worry about what gaming is going to be in 7 years. More and more I see Ryans software becbecoming like 2k, and policy mistakes echoing Matrick. Not e3 2013 Matrick that killed xbox in less than 40 minutes. I mean the 4 years prior where he was all in on kinectimals, shutting studios, and basically almost forcing Spencer out....e3 13 was just the public announcement of all that had been broken over years. I'm afraid that in 7 years, PlayStation will come across as an empty shell, and ms really will go monopoly and flip the tables again.
Particularly the last one since it mentions that the developers wanted to have their freedom. It can be interpreted either as they have freedom now but they want more or they don't have a lot of freedom at all now. I wonder if these events have any connection to Sony's organisational restructuring in recent years? It just feels weird to see veterans from first-party studios leave since Sony is (or used to) be about giving their development teams creative freedom.
Well Sony has made it so much more cumbersome to buy games from the PS3, Vita and PSP Stores. On top of removing these games from the web store, they now have to adhere to new EU regulations which dictate that from January 1st 2021, you cannot purchase games in the stores with credit card or PayPal due to outdated security structures. If only they had kept the games on their web store, this wouldn't be that much of an issue, but now you'll have to go to their web store, fill up your wallet with the necessary amount of money and then purchase the games from each respective store on the system that you want to buy the games from. Not to mention that Sony hasn't even updated the Vita Store in a long time now, which means that you won't see a lot of games on there and have to look elsewhere (e.g. the PS3 Store, which is very slow to navigate).
I received this information from an email sent out by PlayStation and the only reason I got it according to the email was because I had recently purchased PS1 games on the Vita Store. Which makes me think that not everyone is going to get this information about not being able to use credit card/PayPal on those three stores anymore. Not to mention that this was sent out on such a short notice, I mean January 1st is only in a couple of weeks.
While they have confirmed that you can still purchase games from the stores by adding money to your wallet on the online store, for some reason I don't really trust this method. So I feel like I should buy all the games that I want to get now before the end of the month. I've bought now Alundra, Wild Arms and Suikoden 1 & 2, so I feel pretty content. Still contemplating on getting e.g. Vagrant Story and Grandia. I mean, physical copies of these games cost so much and they are not readily available on other systems, so I feel like I should get them while the payment method that I use now still works fine.
It's so stupid though that Sony removed PS3, PSP and Vita games from their web store. You can still buy Xbox and Xbox 360 games on Microsoft's web store, so why not just keep them around? I guess it's because you can't really buy these games on neither PS4 nor PS5, while you can buy Xbox/Xbox 360 games on One/Series X. Really makes it clear to me that I should invest more in Xbox for the sake of preserving my games.
@Kefka2589 I wholeheartedly agree. I mean, if Sony had just implemented BC for PS1, PS2 and PS3 games then there wouldn't be a need to remove them from their web store since you could just buy and play them on PS4 and PS5 as well.
It's the same problem with Nintendo, really. No way to play Wii or Wii U games on Switch, and there isn't even a proper Virtual Console system. In other words, you can't count on the games you buy on Nintendo or PlayStation to be carried over to their next systems. If you want to play Super Mario Galaxy on Switch, you'll have to fork over €60 for their collection and you can't use the copy of the Wii game that you already have. Xbox is literally the only console platform where you can count on having already purchased games playable on their next system. That's the main advantage of Microsoft removing the "generation" barrier and instead offer a similar system to PC. When you buy a game on Steam, you don't need to buy it again in 10 years. That's how it should always be irrespective of your platform of choice.
@LtSarge I also got the email since when they announced the closure of the Web store I bought some PSP, PS1 and Vita games I wanted, since they won't be discounted anyway. I also got the SD2Vita adapter and now I have all my PS1,PSP,Vita games installed in my Vita and Vita TV. Since I have pretty much I have all the games I want I am done. Even if I wanted to buy more games they made it way troublesome.
According to Sony I am in the minority but I loved that they had BC in their systems. I occasionally revist classic games like Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Silent Hill, Resident Evil. Sony has a treasure of a back catalogue that ignores in order for new games to sell better that is understandable to some extend. Heck I have ALL Final Fantasy games on my Vita until 10 (1,2,3,4 PSP BC, 5,6,7,8,9 PS1 PC, 10,10-2 native Vita), all retro Resident Evil games, etc. ready to play anytime. I think it is true that many don't care about BC or game preservation.
And not let me get started on Nintendo. They sort of semi-officially said that they will have no Virtual Console because it steal spotlight and sales from indie games!! To be fair this happened in the Wii U and I was on of those who did it.
I enjoy the BC in my new Series S. I love SEGA and got and play currently some of their classics that I also have on PS3 but cannot play on PS4. Too bad MS does not have such interesting games in BC since I mostly play japanese games but I will surely enjoy to replay the Final Fantasy 13 Trilogy with updated visuals and load times.
Have you played Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon on Xbox 360? If you're looking for Japanese games to play then you should definitely check those out since they are exclusive to Xbox.
Going back to what you said about PlayStation BC, I too love that Vita has access to so many old games. What I don't understand is why Sony hasn't realised that people love playing old games and they're literally sitting on a treasure trove of retro goodness from PS1, PS2 and PS3. I mean, the fact that you can play the first ten Final Fantasy games, or the retro RE games, or even hidden gems like Suikoden and Wild Arms makes owning the Vita so worth it. Imagine if you had access to all these games on PS5 and that you could carry over all your already purchased games there, I would literally buy one in a heartbeat. But what's the appeal of it now? I still have my PS4 and access to all these games. If I want to buy a next-gen system today, I would easily go for a Series X simply because I can play Xbox/Xbox 360/Xbox One games on there, not to mention Quick Resume and better performance for a lot of these titles would make this a great investment.
I think its a reflection on the attitudes of the different Companies. Microsoft - at least now with Phil Spencer at the helm - are keen to preserve video games and want to find a way to bring your game collection forward. Sony on the other hand are more interested in looking forward.
A few years ago, Jim Ryan (I believe) even said 'who wants to play 'old' games when they have these great looking new games (or words to that effect) and it seems they are doing it because the 'competition' and market tells them its needed. They also want to brush 'mistakes' under the carpet by turning off servers, removing games from sale etc - Driveclub springs to mind. Preserving games by making them playable also cuts out an avenue of money - the remaster. Sony has done well with them - maybe another reason they are pushing for higher game prices too. Sony do seem to be more 'business' focussed rather than gamers and as consumer focussed as MS. I know MS area business too but Phil Spencer is also a gamer at heart and it shows in their approach to old games too.
Its not as simple as it seems to have a console run older games - even if the 'core' architecture is similar - like x86. Even on PC's, its not guaranteed that 'old' games will run on new CPU/GPU's but you have access to download drivers etc to try and get them to run. It can hold you back when it comes to making new hardware too if you also have to run older games.
Part of the reason the original PS3 was so expensive was because it also had a PS2 chipset built in so would be BC. They believed back then that BC was 'important' for the first year or so when there are few games to play on the new system. The Series S/X launched with the ability to play more games than any console ever but few 'new' games and none that are only on Series S/X (as far I can recall) - although we will have the Medium in the upcoming months and more to follow (inc Flight Sim, Warhammer: Darktide, Stalker 2, The Gunk, Scorn) and first party games like Perfect Dark, Fable, Forza Motorsport, Avowed, State of Decay 3, Everwild etc are so far only confirmed for Series S/X consoles. But regardless, it still launched with MORE playable games than any other Xbox because of BC and I would be surprised if MS's 'next' console beats it.
Part of me doesn't care about BC - I still have my old consoles and my old discs too so it doesn't matter if the newer console doesn't play them. I can still play them on the console they were released on. That being said, I appreciate the fact that I can play those games on my Series X otherwise I would have nothing to play on it - at least if Cyberpunk 2077 didn't release as a proper Series X release as it is right now and the Series X wouldn't have been a very difficult purchase to justify at launch. The PS5 would have made more sense IF I could have bought one but it made more sense to get the Series X and wait to upgrade the PS5 - but Spider-Man Miles Morales was the only 'release' day exclusive I was interested in and that too released on PS4 as well.
Without BC, I do wonder whether these consoles would have released - even if they had the stock ready to go because with the difficult year we have seen, they would have released with few 'big' games - bar 'remasters' to bulk up the titles. I don't know that many could justify buying a $500 console and multiple games to play on it to see them through the upcoming months with enough 'variety' to play on them without BC either as all new games cost full price too and with BC, you can at least pick up some bargains to play and have your backlog as well...
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
@LtSarge If you shop around online you can usually find PSN credit for about a 10 to 15% discount in the UK if you go to the right website. I don’t know what the situation is in your region but it would certainly be worth looking. The website are use (shopto) generate a code immediately which I input immediately so it isn’t significantly less convenient then using a credit card on the PlayStation store.
@LtSarge As for the GBA games I have the Castlevania Trilogy and the Golden Sun Duology in both Cardridge and Wii U VC. I cannot recommend them enough. Aria of Sorrow is one of the Best Castlevania games ever made. Golden Sun is great but we have to play both games back to back since the second is mostly a part 2. The Wii U in general is my VC machine, I have tons of classics downloaded but no Wii U games except the Zelda ones! I have never played Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon since Series S is my first xbox. I will definetely check them out.
@BAMozzy Jim Ryan said something to that extend but there is an obvious counter example. The port of the original Final Fantasy 7 is available on PS4 and has sold well while the recently released Remake sold exceptionally well. I could also guess that the same could apply to the Resident Evil Remakes if the original games would be available. Also Miles Morales performs great on my PS4 Pro and it is a very good game. If you haven't played to wait to play it on PS5 it I really recommend it to play it now.
As a more general comment, even if you have the original consoles and games, digital distribution makes revisiting older games very convenient, even if you have to pay for them again. You can play them anytime in modern hardware without husstles like connecting old consoles to HDMI Tvs, having to deal with the horrendous 50Hrz PAL games etc. Still the PS1 BC remains one of my favoutite Vita features.
@Ryall I mean it still kinda is inconvenient since you can only purchase set amounts of PSN credit, e.g. €10, €20 and so on. If I want to buy a game that costs €13, I'll have to get €20 PSN credit in order to buy it, leaving me with €7 on my account that I might not even use. At least with credit card I can choose exactly the amount that I want.
@belmont Out of curiosity, would you recommend to play the GBA Castlevania games in release order? I really want to play Aria of Sorrow, but I've heard that Circle of the Moon is not nearly as good as that game and the same can be said with Harmony of Dissonance. Therefore I really want to play CotM, HoD and then AoS just to appreciate how each entry gets better instead of playing AoS first and then finding the other two to be worse games.
@LtSarge AoS is definetely the bist of the three but all are good games. If you are a fan of the Castlevania series that didn't play the GBA games for some reason go with the release order. If you are more of a Symphony of the Night or Metroidvania fan you can simply play AoS and its sequel on the DS. INHO play them in release order anyway. They are not long games.
CotM is a non canon iteration that only has a single ending. It is the hardest of the three but pretty short. It is the worst of the three in both techical and gameplay points of view. HoD is a SotN copy and has multiple endings. It has an interesting light gothic asthetic, I love it, but the pinnacle is AoS. This is a phenomenal Metroidvania game with a very good power system. It is the same used in Bloodstained if you have played it. I love the gothic setting, the characters are great and it has a suprisingly interesting plot.
@belmont There are always going to be exceptions and some games may well sell many years later on much newer hardware - especially a 'classic' like FFvii. You can also argue that the Xbox One showed that people will play older games on newer hardware via BC too but as I said, its not a simple case of just flicking a [metaphorical] switch that allows old games to run - especially on a console - even if the same 'core' architecture is used.
From a business perspective, you first have to consider whether the investment and research/development to ensure your 'new' design is able to run old games in some capacity with little/no major input and that the 'new' design also doesn't have too much if any impact on your ambitions for the new hardware. If you have to make some compromises or design choices because of running older games, is it worth it. There is of course the PR aspect too and what the competition appears to offer. There is the 'potential' loss of those remasters from last gen that had little more than a settings change - I know its a bit more effort than that to port across but the end result is little more than a resolution and/or frame rate boost but with BC, you could literally patch in new settings and people aren't going to spend the same money on a 'patch'. There are always going to some people still playing older generation games in 5yrs time but manufacturers may well have to decide whether its worth upsetting those to focus purely on the future or find a solution to keep them happy without compromising too much on their plans.
As far as you as a customer, you never own any game - regardless of whether you bought it on disc or digitally. What you purchased was a Licence - basically a key to allow you to 'play' the software. However, that licence was to play that game on the 'specific' hardware it was released for. The software and all contracts, licences etc for that game where based on the platform it released on and that includes the 'contract' you made by purchasing the licence to play it on that platform. PC's are generic, essentially timeless - there isn't a PC1, PC2, PC3 etc and an 'open' platform but Consoles are closed and your 'licence' was to play the game on the specific platform. They have no obligation to fix issues if the game doesn't work properly on any other platform or ensure any licences are still kept up to date - like music licences for example or permissions for use of logos etc. Like I said, PC is different because its an open platform and you bought a licence to play on PC - not a specific era/generation.
I know its convenient but that's not the point. From a consumers perspective, I whole heartedly agree that you want ALL your games to move forward with you and I hope that as we move forward beyond this generation, we don't end up losing older games. Maybe one way is to change the licencing to be more generation-less - like just Playstation or just Xbox not specific to a generation but we will have to see how feasible it is with the new hardware of that time to run games built and licensed for a specific console and whether or not licences make it difficult for EVERY game to move forward. Also if there is an issue, you can't rely on devs to fix it and the more time that goes by, the more games release - the more games there are, the more games the console manufacturer has to test to ensure that they are 'safe' to allow them on their new hardware - not going to brick your system, mess your (or their) data up or breach any security, privacy etc - especially as a LOT of games these days rely on online connection.
I don't care how good Miles Morales plays on PS4 Pro, if there is a 'better' version, one that allows higher frame rates and/or visual quality, I want to play it on that platform and I can wait until I have the hardware to do it. The reason I bought a Pro and an XB1X was because they offered better visuals and/or frame rates even though I could of carried on playing games on my PS4/XB1. As soon as I knew these consoles were releasing, I stopped playing ANY game I knew were getting Pro/X support and waited until I had those consoles to continue playing
Anyway, the main point I was trying to make is that there is quite a big difference between consumer and business/legal perspectives. Its not as simple as the newer, more powerful hardware should run older games built for weaker but ultimately similar hardware within the same family - even using the same APU manufacturer. Its not as simple the Manufacturer deciding whether or not older generations will or will not be supported regardless and there are legalities too - even if you do buy digitally. You only bought a Licence to play that specific software on that specific hardware - although we are seeing some now that do say multiple platforms (PS4 & PS5, XB1 and Xbox Series consoles - certainly says that on the back of my Cyberpunk and AC: Valhalla game cases). The games and all the software, music, etc were all licenced and rated for the specific platform. Of course as a consumer, I would prefer to see all games carry forward and remain at least as playable as they were on the gen they released on...
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
@BAMozzy You make some excellent points. If you remember from pushsquare I have created topics there about BC and game preservation and I am very interested in the topic. My coding skills are not up to this point but I was and still am in the Emulation scene.
I totally agree on the licencing issue. It is a pain, you see it when games dissapear from digital stores. As a SEGA fan I was able to get Outrun on PS3 before it vanished due to the Ferrari licence expiring but I have friens that missed it and now they cannot buy it.
As for R&D in BC development MS it seem that MS poured money to it by developing an xbox/xbox 360 emulator for the xbox one that is a big achievement from a techical point of view. As for PS4 to 5 and One to Series BC seems to be like upgrading a PC, no coding is needed, the games simply work due to the same architecture. Now if on the PS6 era the architecture has to change for some reason BC will have issues.
As Sony is concerned when the PS1 emulator for Vita was completed the games simply worked, all of them! This makes me think that those games have some kind of general "playstation" licence like the one you suggest. I don't think that Sony negotiated again with all publishers to make their games Vita combatible. Same goes with PSP to Vita games. They seemed to have a generic "playstation" licence also since all of them (except Silent Hill games due to bugs present even is native PSPs) were day one compatible with Vita and Vita TV. Licence prevented the re-rease of some games though. The only notable example though was Final Fantasy 7 Crisis Core. I don't think that any other major PS1 or PSP game is not available in psn.
What I want to tell is that Sony already sells those games and not making them PS4 or 5 compatible seems more like a marketing decision, not a licence or R&D one. Of cource making a commercial emulator is not the same as a homebrew one but Sony has done it with sucess in the past for the PS3 and the Vita. They also made an excellent PS2 to PS4 emulator that abandoned only two months later...
As for Miles Morales we are not in an 8bit-16bit generation when the 8bit versions were totally different games with less content. The content is the same in both versions and I really recommend this game if you cannot get a PS5 soon (that seems impossible in my country anyway, local news say that the next consoles will come in the end of February, Series X is also sold out, Series S is almost sold out too). I totaly get your point though, I would prefer to play it on PS5 too if I could find/afford one but there is still the option.
@belmont I am of course aware of your contributions on PushSquare and Emulation does seem to be the most obvious solution if it can be done reliably - however, its rarely, if ever 100% effective. Its not just licences for brands like Ferrari or for musical artists if they use it - but you also have game engines and any bolted on software (like Havok Physics/Cloth/AI), actor likeness as well as complications over IP and distribution rights - I believe Sunset Overdrive could be complicated by the fact that Insomniac own the IP - now owned by Sony of course, but Microsoft own the Distribution rights so that would complicate a potential Sequel until those Publishing rights cease or some agreement can be reached. There could be too many different hoops to jump through to get the necessary right to allow you to play certain games on their 'new' platform. New owners of a major IP could say they don't give permission for games to run on new hardware. Its not just selling a game like Outrun or Spider-Man digitally but if you own the license because you bought it to play on a PS3, the license essentially is to play that game on a PS3 and, like any software license, can be terminated at any time for any reason too. Like I said, you NEVER own the Game - the Software is owned by the developer or publisher and they can terminate that license anytime they want. Of course its more difficult if the License is offline (ie on a disc) and not specific to you. When you sold a game on Disc or Cartridge, what you were actually selling was your license. If they allowed you to, you could literally sell your 'digital' license - you technically can put that means selling your entire profile and that means every game licence linked to that.
When you buy a digital game, you download the software and in theory, you could download every single game in the Store but without a valid license, you have no right to play it. We see numerous types of license - from general (as we see on discs meaning you need the disc in the system to grant access, but doesn't matter who is signed in), specific (as we see with Digital that are locked to your account and you need to be signed in), conditional (as Games with Gold, PS+, Game Pass have - some condition(s) must be met like you must be online to verify you have an active and current subscription), Temporary (as in some limited time demo or pre-order beta access games may have). However, at anytime, the owners of the software have the right to terminate licences to their software for any reason - more often than not, its for breaches of their Terms and Conditions but they could force Sony/MS to remove support on devices it wasn't licenced for if that breaches any T&C's they may have too.
When you look at MS, only a quarter of the 360 games (577 of 2084) are BC and they only have 42 of 998 OG Xbox games available - that's just 619 out of 3082 or 20% of the library. Every game has to be given permission from the content owner and they may have complications in granting that permission. Even though the hardware should be more than capable of running the software from a specs perspective, some games are so finely tuned that they only work 'properly' on that hardware. Even a small boost (like Pro's Boost Mode) can affect the way a game runs because the game is built or optimised around very specific frequencies/tick rate. A few games had issues with Boost mode on - crashing, strange animation errors.
From Mark Cernys interview with Eurogamer on the PS4 Pro
But surely x86 is a great leveller? Surely upgrading the CPU shouldn't make a difference - after all, it doesn't on PC. It simply makes things better, right? Sony doesn't agree in terms of a fixed platform console.
"Moving to a different CPU - even if it's possible to avoid impact to console cost and form factor - runs the very high risk of many existing titles not working properly," Cerny explains. "The origin of these problems is that code running on the new CPU runs code at very different timing from the old one, and that can expose bugs in the game that were never encountered before."
For Sony, it's all about playing it safe, to ensure that the existing 700 titles just work.
"I've done a number of experiments looking for issues when frequencies vary and... well... [laughs] I think first and foremost, we need everything to work flawlessly. We don't want people to be conscious of any issues that may arise when they move from the standard model to the PS4 Pro."
They could have opted to go with Puma - the 2nd generation Jaguar CPU's that came out a year after the Jaguar for the Pro with the same support, cache, cores, architecture etc - with a slightly better efficiency, a reduction in power draw and can be boosted more but its basically the same. Its the same GCN architecture but Sony were concerned that even that would cause problems even when running at the same frequency due to slightly improve efficiency and also why Boost Mode wasn't available at launch and came with a disclaimer.
The problem with a closed system - like a Console - is that games are optimised specifically to that hardware. The Pipeline can be so 'exact' that any variation due to frequency changes or efficiency gains can have a negative impact. In a closed and fixed system, you know exactly how many cycles per frame the CPU does, can schedule things to process on 'X' cycle or maybe you know it takes say 3 cycles for the CPU to do something so you schedule the GPU to do something but with the frequency changes, things get out of sequence in the pipeline causing the game to break, stutter or crash.
It was far more important to make sure EVERY existing PS4 game ran as expected without expecting the Developer to 'fix' issues of their PS4 game not running as expected on a PS4 Pro when it runs on the base console so Sony made sure the Pro would run exactly the same as a PS4 and Boost Mode was optional for any game negatively impacted by the 'small' changes. If a PS4 game doesn't run on PS5 as expected (as some don't), then there is no obligation to make that game work as the game was licensed for PS4 anyway and it doesn't really negatively impact on Sony - its still a positive if 90% of the games work as expected or better. Not all games on the XB1 run on Series X with Kinect not being supported at all - I still think Dance & Fitness games were so much better with Kinect than 'Move' or Wii Motes.
On an open platform like a PC, the games are not 'optimised' for a specific and fixed spec. They are made much more generalised and the consumer has a wealth of settings to try and optimise the game for their hardware. If your Hardware is insufficient, upgrade a part. If an old game doesn't run as expected, try and find some driver to download and make it work or maybe try and find a Mod that makes it work. Maybe just have to run it in a window because full screen causes it to break until a driver update comes along, maybe just cap it to 30 or 60fps because anything more causes the animations to mess up. Maybe try running it with an older API (DX11 not 12 or maybe even try Vulkan) or do something with your hardware to find a solution - the onus is on you and if it screws up something else, that's on you too
On a separate point, I don't tend to play games again - unless they are on a separate platform with trophies/achievements to get as an added incentive for investing more time in seeing 'everything' again. So I might as well enjoy the game at its 'best' on console if possible and as I have every intention of getting a PS5, I might as well wait until I do and then at least have 'new' experiences to play (inc any games in my backlog that I haven't yet experienced) rather than just playing the games I have already experienced with little more than a visual and/or performance boost. I have so many games I haven't yet experienced, I am not looking to play a game that I have so recently completed with no real incentive to replay so soon.
Spider-Man MM is one of the very few games that I would want 'exclusive' to Playstation. Other games I can play on a Series X of course so I want some games to justify buying the PS5 for. Its difficult to justify buying it to replay a game I have recently finished on PS4 Pro for example but its an incentive to get a PS5 to play - I definitely want one in time for Horizon 2 and I will have to replace the Hideous white sides and hope a Black controller becomes available sooner. I still haven't used the new Xbox controller as the Elite V.2 is by far the best controller on the market as far as I am concerned...
I will get Miles Moralles but its not something I am so desperate to play that I would 'make do' with the PS4 version until I can get a PS5.
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
Hey, remember when PlayStation fans were saying that Microsoft should stop buying up studios and organically grow their own ones? Well, turns out Sony is doing the reverse by "organically" breaking down their own studios: https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2021/02/sony_japan_studio_win...
This is just absolutely insane to me. PlayStation used to be all about the diversity of games on its platform and Sony (or specifically Jim Ryan) is getting rid of what made PlayStation so special. I remember some time ago when I told people that PS4 didn't have as diversified library of games as PS3 had and people said to me that they'd rather have games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Spider-Man etc. than games like Puppeteer, Gravity Rush and so on, i.e. games with unique experiences even if they don't have a mass appeal. And now look at what's happening, we're not getting games like that at all anymore. PS5 is going to have even less of a diversified library of games than PS4 had.
So tell me again, what's the point in buying a PS5? First with the news that more PlayStation exclusives are coming to PC, and now less games are being developed from Sony's internal studios. At this point you're just investing in a machine that offers you the same kind of experiences, i.e. third-person action games. Microsoft is gradually getting the upper-hand now this generation.
I'm very intrigued now to find out what Sony is going to show us during tonight's State of Play after having read this news.
EDIT: Well the State of Play was absolutely disappointing, boring and completely unnecessary. Nine of the ten games were titles they already showed off last year and basically nothing new was shown. What a waste of time.
It's things like this that I brought up in the leaving PlayStation for Xbox thread that somebody else started as to why I'm back with Xbox as my lone console. As good as the PS4 generation was, I'm starting to get tired of almost everything from Sony being 3rd person action adventure.
There's the exception obviously with Gran Turismo, but Microsoft took a lot of crap for making the same kind of games and eventually (deservingly) getting criticized for having overall weak 1st party output, and Sony should get criticized too. Overall, Sony's first party output is of very high quality, but eventually having everything being very similar to the last one gets kind of boring no matter how good the games are.
As we already know, Xbox is looking pretty interesting for the first time in a while with their upcoming first party output. At least they are doing more than just churning out 3rd person action adventure after 3rd person action adventure games. It's a shame too as the developers Sony is having churning out the same kind of games are extremely talented and seem to work really well as a "family" of developers. They are more concerned with the masses, unlike back in the PS3 days, a really magical period for them in a sense.
PSN ID/Xbox Live Gamertag: KilloWertz
Switch Friend Code: SW-6448-2688-7386
"Very few bought their games anyway". So by that logic, developers should never experiment and release unique experiences and just play it safe all the time. Instead of fighting for diversity, we should simply accept that companies like Sony will downsize/shut down their studios simply because of poor sales. PlayStation fans are constantly saying that you buy PlayStation systems for their exclusives, but now you'll have less exclusives. Wouldn't it make more sense for Sony to keep these studios going in order to increase the amount of exclusives on their system? Because that's what Microsoft is doing now, at least in terms of making Game Pass more appealing. If Microsoft were to shut down a studio now due to poor sales, then they would be only making Game Pass less appealing. However, if Sony shuts down (or in this case downsizes) a company, then it makes PS5 less appealing. So why are people defending this exactly? Because it makes sense from the perspective of the company? But we are consumers, why should we care if it makes business sense or not? This is the same thing as when PS fans are complaining about how Game Pass isn't sustainable. That's an issue for Microsoft, the company, not for you, the consumer.
I just don't understand how people can be fine with having less games on their system. Yes it makes business sense, but it doesn't make consumer sense. I mean sure, it could be that Sony doesn't have as much money to spend as Microsoft, which in that case makes me more glad to be supporting Microsoft because I don't want to support a company that's downsizing/shutting down studios and never investing in anything new. Which is the complete opposite in the case of Microsoft right now.
Forums
Topic: Official PlayStation Thread
Posts 61 to 80 of 244
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic