So you have to purchase a game because it's 500 hrs long? Btw it's not.
Up till now Sony has been releasing high quality games in genres that they do best simply because they were the only ones doing them...especially when the narrative was that single player games are dying.
I wonder what they would do if they missed most of the popular fps. I would hope that they would bring back some of their shooters which were actually pretty darn good. Resistance and Killzone. I think resistance could be great. Perhaps some other new fps IPs instead.
<...
Oh look. Here you are.
"I've always promoted open availability of games, but so many on here are all about exclusivity"
Just like I said in another comment. You flip flop your standards based on other people. Either youre for open availability or you arent. It doesnt matter that Billy is being mean about exclusivity.
Hopefully you now understand what hypocrisy reads like.
@obscure
Yes please do remember my comment.
And please be sure to improve your reading comprehension. It was rebooted and changed drastically. If perfect dark remains a 1st person shooter/stealth game...thats not the same thing as what god of war did. If fable remains similar to the first 3 fables...thats not the same as god of war. Wasnt forza motorspport always a racing game/simulator?
Do you realize how you sound and how dishonest you are?
<...
For me returnal was the best. Only because it stuck with me months later. I sold it after I beat it and now I regret it because I'd like to keep playing it. That's never happened to me. 5/5
Halo infinite was probably the worst console exclusive for me since I don't like the open world and I don't like that it released incomplete. Also don't like the monetization scheme at all or the customization. It's got great gunplay but I need my games to have a ...
Did you beat returnal?
I have a friend who was also annoyed but only because he kept dying. He kept at it and is now playing much better and clearly loves it.
Thinking of giving it a shot
Well actually that's not necessarily true. This could be a negative thing if a casual who has always played on PlayStation suddenly finds himself unable to play those games...he may wonder why and possibly be driven to spite due to that BS anti consumer move.
No matter how you slice it. Removing games from other platforms is 100% anti consumer. Buying up 3rd party Multiplatform devs is 100% anti consumer. And that's the case no matter who does it.
That's called not burning bridges. Nothing to do with cordiality. Fans don't have to worry about burning those bridges
Okay now you're making no sense.
You claim Sony fans keep wanting Sony to buy devs. I haven't seen that at all. I've seen specualtion due to recent Microsoft trends that Sony may buy those studios but never that we want them to.
Also what does it matter if there's some isolated individuals who want that. The question is whether Sony wants it. And that's my problem with all this. Sony may act on buying studios simply because MS is on a ...
You guys said the same when they bought their first line of studios. You said the same thing when they bough zenimax and youre still saying the same thing now that they bought activision blizzard.
You can hypothesize all you want but youre dead wrong.
What has sony done recently that is even remotely similar? Have they purchased a single predominantly 3rd party developer recently? Ever? No.
If sony goes and buys capcom or from software ...
Sony made demons souls. The rest are timed exclusives and you can thank Tomb Raider devs for that one. It used to be only timed dlc in modern times until mcirosoft bought 1 year game exclusivity which didnt pay off at all. The opened the can of worms and playstation responded in kind. Not saying I like it...cuz i dont.
Id be quite sad personally. It would be a horrible purchase. Id rather they go for something more iconic like capcom or from software. But either of those purchases would be bad for gamers.
Dont get why people dont see the problem with Microsofts stream of multiplatform dev purchases.
It will. Im pretty sure they opted for cross gen vs doing something like a remaster for ps5. Remember the Last of Us 1. It released on ps3 at the very end and then almost immediately on the ps4 as a "remaster"
I have a feeling it was a crossgen title but needed some more work due to the shift in architecture.
Actually AAA was first used to describe polished games with a level of quality that was acceptable. Games in the past would release with tons of bugs and the AAA games promised to release polished.
Nowadays it only means budget but it used to mean much more.
I have a feeling that Sony may decide to allow gamepass on their platform. Perhaps as part of a ps plus tier.
That wouldnt be bad for sony...because then they really wouldnt need to release their games on other platforms and playstation would be the only necessary console for every gamer.
@ obscure
I'm well aware of the games in production by existing studios. Microsoft is not funding new studios and their IPs they are buying existing multiplatform
I find it hilarious that you bring up the 2nd iteration of a new IP and a rebooted IP. That's a very clear stretch on your part.
And you pretend all Sony does is sequels. But if thats the case we wouldn't have gotten ghosts of Tsushima, demon souls, spiderman, returnal, the last of us part 1, god of war would not have been rebooted to such a different type of game from what was popular and expected, and many others.
You mean gamers losing out. The only substantial IP PlayStation won't or may not get is CoD. Most of the others were mainly PC games anyways.
But this is bad for gamers overall. And I'll say it's bad also when/if Sony buys out Capcom or square or even from software.
But I thought hard games are niche /s
I'm actually more excited for elden ring than anything else releasing all year.