Because they are adding more content and graphics to render on screen. These systems could very easily just take what the PS4 had six years ago, do a slight texture bump and get 4k/60 but they are adding a lot more. Not saying 60fps isn’t important or can’t possibly be achieved. But it’s not as big of a deal as you make it seem.
It will absolutely be cheaper than the disc version. Even with double the storage capacity, if that rumor is true, that’s negligible cost difference to the removal of the disc drive. But Sony is then guaranteed to collect a nice licensing fee on the software purchased for the lifetime of the console. Absolutely no risk of losing money from used game sales or bargain bin retailers. It makes perfect sense why they’d price a digital edition lower.
Your logic is exactly why big third parties do NOT want on game pass except for games who have already mostly peaked in sales. Even if the game is good, inevitably there will be many who play and realize they don’t like the game. So they basically see almost no revenue from that “customer” who may have originally paid full price. It’s not a good model for major third party companies. And quite frankly, a lot of them will simply create their own game pass like service before they support Micro...
It just goes to show how the simplest of ideas and execution can translate into a really fun experience if done right. Even with hiccups. That being said, this game really needs some sort of split screen option. It’s perfect for local couch play.
Lol you are calling PS5 Digital a different “type” of console? You know it isn’t you just wanted to make it sound like MS didn’t have that much more than Sony. Besides, the numeric naming convention Sony uses is easier for the non-gamer consumer to understand anyway. They didn’t just twist around the usage of the letter X.
4 player split screen is really nice. Not enough games provide that anymore.
I get your point and agree open world isn’t a good excuse, but I’m quite confident RDR2 had an excessively high budget.
I think Sony will eventually come out with a black version (and probably many other versions), but it’s not this one and it is unlikely to be at launch. They’re going to want to produce as many consoles as possible at launch and keeping it to one SKU is one of the simplest way to ensure smooth production. Also, even if they did a black edition I highly doubt they’d change the LED coloring to red. They consider the blue to be a PS trademark that is associated with the brand.
Was unveiled with the boomerang controller too lol
I typically side with the “inflation” argument also. But others have made good points that although we have gone 15 years without a price hike, we effectively HAVE had price hikes via DLC and cosmetic items that come at a cost. Developers simply became more effective at extracting money from their most dedicated customers rather than all of the customer base overall. That could only hold for so long though, which is why they are finally using this opportunity to jack up the price. I wish it m...
It’s as simple as inflation really. $69 today is roughly equivalent to $49 in the year the PS2 launched. It’s actually cheaper inflation adjusted than the last jump to $59 in 2006. We should not be surprised. The DLC/collectors editions etc are the only reason the base price was not increased this last gen. 15 years is a long time to charge the same base price.
Regardless of ones opinions of AirPods or wireless headphones in general, they have been very popular and are selling quite a bit. A lot of consumers in the future won’t even have wired headphones (since most major phones no longer include them for the standard jack). It would be nice if we could just use the Bluetooth pairs already owned if needed.
Not a chance Sony launches PS5 at $599. Even though inflation has reduced that relatively speaking since they launched PS3 in 2006, that was still a massive PR hit for the company and I suspect they feel pretty damaged from it. They’re more likely to launch at 549 if they need to go above 499. But I still put the highest odds at 499 being the price.
Remembering that $599 in 2006 is equivalent to about $755 in today’s dollars makes it even more incredible that the PS3 launched at that price back then (and it was sold at a massive loss!). Could you imagine what a $749 priced playstation could give you today? I expect this one to be priced at $449 (close to 399 in 2013 dollars) or 499.
It’s a total myth that Xbox “PR problems” cost them the lead. I notice this from every Xbox friendly writer. It’s easier to blame PR and the price than admit consumers simply like the competing product more. They certainly shot themselves in the foot at launch, but they still would have lost to Sony. They were losing the years prior to that globally and the US market started leaning toward Sony from 2011-2013. The software exclusive to Playstation was superior. At best, if they had priced equ...
Sorry you lost your job. I’m assuming you got another one lol.
Very few people were buying two copies of the same game, or paying for the same DLC twice.
Not happening. As many have said Spider-Man was unique being in exclusive control with Sony. But even apart from that, the PS4/Nintendo install base outnumbers Xbox by such a huge amount there’s no way marvel would want one of their big new titles limited that way. Microsoft would have to spend a sum that would be astronomical, which is probably better spent elsewhere in new IP.
Ridiculous that we can’t even expect more than 18 years of support on these things ;)
It was claimed that due to COVID they couldn’t do the madden photo shoots for the cover athlete like they normally would. But you’re correct, this solution is garbage. Just like the game itself.