For the larger part of this generation Sony have dominated most third-party studios when it comes to graphical prowess. One needs to only look at Sony’s past and upcoming games. Games like Killzone 2 and The Last of Us clearly dominate the majority of third-party games in their respective genres. However with the next generation of consoles approaching this could all change.
For Southeast Asia, new price changes.
Prices effective starting May 1st, 2026.
Replies(1)Looks like PlayStation took a hit with Marathon and is now quietly adjusting prices worldwide to recover the losses
Lets be honest raising prices doesn't do that when no one's buying it. I imagine the profit it greater selling 10 times more at a lower price
LMFAO Your comment alone says a lot more about you than anything else. When has one game not selling 10 million copies made a company raise the prices of their console? Then Xbox would be costing $5000 by now lol. You remind of the crazy drug addicts on the street rambling on about conspiracies. xD You sure you don't need a hug, buddy?
One game that Sony payed $200 million for. lol
Also, you sure were quick to get triggered. Maybe your the one who needs a hug?
If nothing else, we should be united against the real issue here. AI and unnecessary tariffs that are effecting all gamers.
The price increases are due to the RAM demand associated with AI and the US-Iran war. You can look to any business news website and local news to see that. Heck, even the 2026 Asus Zenbook Duo I've been eyeing has faced delays and has had a price increase of $400; that laptop has two specs. Asus is doing a staggered release with per-orders for the lower spec now and shipping in May and pre-orders for the higher spec that I'm eyeing starting in June. Basically, all computer manufactures are affected. It'll most likely start affecting smart phones too if it hasn't already. I can't remember the last time any major console maker (Nintendo, Sony, Sega, etc) increased the price of their console mid cycle outside of Microsoft just to make more profit.
War is causing gas prices to rise. Transport of everything requires gas so the prices of those items go up as well. So it does have an impact
The blockage of the Straight of Hormuz due to the US-Iran war has affected raw components used in semi-conductor manufacturing such as bromine, aluminum, and helium. Iran had attacked the liquified natural gas (LNG) plant in Qatar which is a large producer (1/3 globally) of helium which is used in semiconductor etching. So it's the both the war and the RAM crises.
Former Xbox executive Ed Fries comments on the early days of Xbox, the opinion of Japanese game companies, and more.
Replies(2)I dont think that'll ever happen. But i must say back in the day, they were definitely trying because they were more cash rich than their competitors.
I think MS were and still are the richer company. They tried to acquire Sega back in the day (and considered doing so again more recently), they obviously bought exclusivity to Halo which was originally shown as a Mac title. I don’t think as a company MS can claim the moral high ground here. It’s a wilful lack of self awareness.
Of course Sony would try exactly the same if they had the resources, but when the PS2 dominated the industry was in a much healthier place with an abundance of great third parties.
This has been a depressing generation as far as first party decisions are concerned. The fact we are debating business plans rather than which game is better is a sad reflection of the state of things.
There was Nintendo as well, Sony wouldn't have had a monopoly. In fact, the world would be better today if Xbox never existed in the first place. They pretty much brought all bad practices we have today. We might have gotten all of it either way, but not this early. In term of franchises, I don't think there is anything Microsoft released that would actually be missed if it didn't exist. Even Halo the world wouldn't notice if Halo didn't exist.
I think almost everyone will agree that a monopoly is not good for the industry. But that being said, the competition needs to be smart and strategic with their business. Simply buying up publishers and traditional third-party studios just to keep them out of the other companies reach is not a sustainable practice. That goes for all parties so don't think I'm just referring to Xbox.
I'm no business guru by any stretch of the imagination but I firmly believe that the best way to drive consumers to your software and hardware is to invest smart in your first-party studios. Give them full support and guidance in making unique, fun games that are only available to play in your ecosystem and the gamers will come.
But first party studios aren't enough. They only make up a small portion of the industry. Without 3rd party there would be no industry for Microsoft or sony.Developing games take time and money and sometimes you gotta make moves to stay competitive.
Nah, I never said first-party was enough. I said it’s the ‘best way’ to drive gamers to your platform. 3rd-party is a free-for-all and there’s no guarantee that gamers will use your hardware to play the game. If you want to push your own software and/or hardware you need first-party, or at least exclusive deals with third-party studios.
Then why be so emotional and continue to talk about it. Xbox will never die be ause it stays in so many people's head.
How can you even see him being "emotional" in that comment?
If anything, you're the emotional one, constantly trying to go at anyone that says anything against Microsoft. So when you call him emotional, it comes off as deflection
Replies(2)Sony uploaded gameplay footage of Crimson Desert on a base PS5 running in what appears to be Quality Mode at a stable 30fps at 4K.
Biggest strength in previous gens (third party support) ultimately became their biggest weakness. As Third Parties are only as loyal as the $. Third Parties largely defined the PS brand, now that multiplatform releases are much more commonplace Sony has been unable to differentiate themselves in a meaningful way from their two biggest competitors.
M$ gets preferential 3rd Party support, Nintendo's first party titles sell 3x as much as Sony's. This coming gen Sony will have their hands full.
Will see how they react to this changing landscape. They've never came into a new gen of gaming as the previous gen loser. Should be interesting.
good read
Good article. Being more dev friendly is only going to benifit sony in the long run because with better third party support the consumer will be the clear winner with a larger library of quality games.
But in response to the article itself. I don't think all the devs that had problems with the ps3 architecture are lazy, some are and definetly some have clearly pandered to ms over working a little harder to make their ps ports work properly *cough*bethesda*cough*. Some companies probably just dont have the resources to use the ps3 to its full potential, but there are devs who can and have so we know its possible. I'm just glad sony is making the next console as develper friendly as possible so devs wont have that excuse anymore.
also next gen engines are helping to expedite the development process so games should eventually be cheaper faster and easier to produce. Take a look at Unreal 4 enginee on youtube, it looks amazing.
Thx Guys I really try to approach these articles from a balanced point of view. And provide substance as to why I think the way I think. Hopefully I got my point across in a fair way
Perhaps a tad sporadic in it's focus but nevertheless thought provoking, and in my opinion 'thereabouts' in terms of accuracy.
I would have to disagree with the idea that the reason third parties have not emulated first party games is entirely down to the complexity of the PS3 hardware. I can see that a viable argument for the first three to four years, but there has to come a time when developers fully understand why their games are not matching first party in technical achievement.
So what could that missing point be? I think it's actually quite simple. There are two reasons why I believe developers have opted for the poor port option rather than focusing on emulating Sony's own studios:
1/ One glance at the size of Sony exclusives gives you a direct insight into the problem facing third party developers. Increasing the discs costs more and makes it difficult to create a coherent package without necessitating a constant back and forth disc swap; thus linearity is inevitable in the majority of titles or repeated textures to allow for bigger environments.
Yes, Uncharted 1/2/3 are linear in nature, but the diversity in textures and environments is clear to see and as a direct result of only needing to access those assets from one blu-ray disc. Multiplatform developers simply wanted to make the process of creating unified across all platforms and in the pursuit of parity, simply couldn't afford to offer 'more' to PS3 owners.
2/ Developers got lazy. That sounds a very cheap argument because it was used at the very beginning of the PS3s lifecycle when it WAS the difficulty that prevented developers from reaching the heights of first party devs. However, it isn't a cheap argument now. One only has to glance at the sales of games to realise that -- even though a lot of multiplat games are inferior -- these games still sold in reasonably good numbers on the PS3.
What ultimately caused that so called laziness then is the PS3 fan that accepted these ports. I never have and I never will, although I did make the mistake of buying Skyrim. Yes, the PS3 would probably have had less multiplats if people had boycotted these bad ports, but I believe, given time and a blatant warning from Sony fans, these developers would have HAD to get their act together. Basically, they got away with it because they could.
In conclusion: If you want great third party games on the PS4, don't buy inferior ports, wait for the exclusives and wait for third parties to get the message... oh, and don't obsess over who is winning, that will lead to you asking Sony to do silly things.