@yomfweeee
My whole point is that they basically don't even play in the same league as PlayStation. They were pretty close to PS3 last gen because they had an extra year and Sony royally screwed up their launch. It's basically the equivalent of the worst professional team in a sport having a terrible year and only being a little better than the best college team. Of course you expect the professional team to bounce back and be a lot better the next year, because the...
Well, you have to look at it as relative. They had a trash reveal and launch but could end up selling 60+ million when it's all said and done. Which is not as good as Sony ever does or how 360 did, but 360 itself was artificially boosted by coming out a year ahead of PS3 and PS3 having such a bad launch. For all we know, 60m may be what a "good" Xbox console sells without outside help.
Also, Xbox is basically irrelevant in most of the world outside of the US a...
BC will allow you to play the PS4 release of the game on your PS5. However, to the extent they actually add PS5-specific upgrades to the game later and launch a PS5 version (as they did for PS4 with the first game), it is an open question whether owners of the PS4 version will get that for free.
Look at BioShock on Xbox; if you have the 360 version, you can play it on XONE via BC, but if you want the Remastered version released for XONE, you have to buy that separately.
Unfortunately everyone is mixing the concepts of backwards compatibility and upgraded next gen versions of games. This is why we keep seeing people post nonsense about how they are waiting for the Series X launch to buy Cyberpunk so they can play the next gen version, even though at that time you will just be playing the current gen version via BC. They've already confirmed that the next gen version isn't coming until later, but people just mix these concepts in whatever way that supp...
You are right that it's not happening, lol. However, it's not as if people would buy the device then just stop buying games. You get people to buy the device by pointing out to them that they can keep playing their PS4 games, but then you don't stop selling them games once they own it.
And specifically that it was being developed at Sony mid-PS3 era. Had it come out in like 2015-2016 instead, they probably would have made much better decisons. Also why they didn't call it PSP2 is beyond me.
Yeah people forget that the proprietary memory nuked the excitement for the device. Honestly it should have had 16 GB at least built in, with SD for expansion.
I remember one fall (it may have been the second fall it was out), they did a bundle with a 4gb memory card and assassin's Creed liberation for $200ish (I'm thinking $189 for some reason but that sounds weird), and they couldn't keep it in stock anywhere.
I've been thinking the same thing for years (since everyone has been going on and on about how the PS4 processor is just a mobile processor). So many people would already have a library of games, and devs who were already familiar with the platform wouldn't have to learn anything new.
I remember after getting the PS3 at age 16 talking to my brother and saying that it would probably be the last PlayStation I would get because of how much older I would be the next time, but that even if I was still in for the next one, there's no way I'd get a PS5. Lol.
Fair enough. You'd be surprised how many people don't though. I've had so many people argue to me this gen that buying physical games saves hdd space because you don't have to install the entire game (which of course was true last gen). Then when you send them an article pointing out that a game is the same size whether installed via disc or download, they claim that it may be true for a specific game, but that it isn't true generally and that "everyone knows" ph...
I fail to see how naming one superior game in 9 years invalidates Skyrim. Actually, using such a masterpiece as your comparison works as a pretty strong compliment.
I don't think that they are. My point is that they are a separate thing. There are a number of good third person RPGs, but playing in first person is a different experience that far fewer devs seem to get right in the RPG context.
I'm just trying to be clear about why I appreciate Bethesda despite their issues and why I think some of the criticism is unfair. If I were critiquing a first person shooter, I'd compare it to other FPSs rather than third person shoote...
Oh yeah, it does. Here's the thing; doing my option doesn't preclude yours. They could add the hardware to get 100% BC, then do upgrades on a case by case basis like they are doing now where they can work out the licensing issues. There's no law that says a console shalt only employ one backwards compatibility solution.
Honestly, I wonder if it wouldn't be worth it to include 360 hardware inside the machine, like Sony did for PS2 in launch PS3s. That way the games would actually be running on on their original hardware, eliminating all or most licensing issues. Possibly there's some component from the 360 that would be way more expensive now due to lack of production, but presumably it would be more viable than Sony including PS3 hardware in PS5, given the cell processor.
I just th...
Lol "who can't afford a PC." As people keep noting, you don't need a good PC to play these games well. I have a laptop from 2017 with a decent processor but integrated graphics that runs both of these games (and really anything from that era) at a great framerate. You could buy such a PC now for less than what a series X will cost.
It seems like you don't understand the appeal of splitscreen. It's the convenience of having a console hooked up to my...
@Zombieburger638
That's a great idea. I actually really enjoyed both Bad Company games for both single player and multiplayer. They also have the medal of honor license that they've managed to totally tarnish, but which could theoretically be used for a different focus than Battlefield.
Oh gosh, what's a PC? I've never heard of that. Guess I'll have to Google it. I'm sure that, since I specifically mentioned local multiplayer in my comment, you wouldn't have recommended this "PC" thing unless it was just as capable for split screen gaming as a console? I mean, I'm sure it's not going to be a thing where many games lack the splitscreen modes that their console versions have, and others require a janky workaround to make it work. Because ...
I love that people think I don't know what a PC is, and that I don't own these games there. However, there are friends I play co op with, especially RSV2, who only play split screen in the same room as me. A high end gaming PC could descend on them from the sky with every game in existence already installed and a free lightning fast connection, and they wouldn't play PC.
Because you totally are going to go back and play a 3-hour tacked on campaign 15 years after release when the servers shut down. There would be no value in the game without that.
I mean, it's not going to go away in the middle of a generation, so that makes no sense. However, digital will continue to expand it's share of the market, just as it has been doing, and we'll also see more important releases that are digital only.
Arguably, PS4 and Xbox One are almost all-digital anyway, in the sense that discs are just a method of installing the game, and due to patches, only part of it at that. Switch is the only modern system where you buy ...