Pretty sure he's talking about a handful of backwards compatible games where the Series S plays the One S version, but he's free to correct me.
After Ragnorak being on PS4 two years after PS5 launched, I'll believe they are completely done with PS4 when they explicitly say it (or explicitly say that only MLB: The Show will keep coming to PS4 since it's a sports game).
The funny thing is by the time you posted your comment, you could already see plenty of my clarifications noting that I'm just using Diablo and Street Fighter as examples of recent AAA releases, not that I think Sony owns them. So even pretending you were dumb enough to believe I thought that from reading my original comment (I don't believe you or anyone else here was stupid enough to think that), you could see that I'd already clarified that wasn't what I was saying. So your...
Yeah the Horizon DLC was a good sign. I'd like to think that was a reaction to low sales of the base game on PS4.
D4 and SF6 are only relevant because they are recent crossgen releases. If the PS4 versions of those games are flopping now, imagine how the PS4 versions of games are going to flop in 2024 when tens of millions of more users have upgraded.
Spiderman 2 is the best sign so far, because it has a ton of casual appeal, and casual friendly games...
I don't care about Xbox. I just want publishers, particularly Sony, to stop holding games back by releasing them on PS4, particularly when they aren't selling there. Xbox doesn't enter into the consideration at all. Honestly I have no idea why Japanese devs even bother releasing on Xbox for most games.
Lol I know the difference between first and third party. I was using examples of recent AAA releases. Literally no one thinks Sony published Street Fighter or Diablo. The point is that if AAA games (regardless of publisher) are selling poorly on PS4 now, imagine how badly they are going to sell in 8 months when millions of more users have upgraded to PS5.
And yes, they did bomb. PS5 version of Diablo outsold the PS4 version by more than 8-1: 1097d ago 3 agree5 disagreeView comment
The CPU of the Series S is a lot better than the One X though.
I hope so. Spiderman 2 not being on PS4 is a great sign for sure.
I know that I'm just using those games as examples of recent AAA crossgen releases.
If only the company that believes in generations would make a similar announcement. Diablo 4 and Street Fighter 6 just bombed on PS4, and yet right now Sony is probably building at least some of their multiplayer games for PS4 "so we can have the broadest possible audience."
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Look at the absolute media blitz they've churned up just to play defense for them on the framerate issue. Can you imagine what they are going to have when this game launches? I mean all the major reviewers and YouTubers have preemptively decided that performance issues have to be excused on the basis of the scope of the game, so you know the reviews are going to be high. There will inevitably be a ton of "Xbox is back" articles, even from m...
Yep, it's a baseline for me to be interested in a multiplayer game that it's a good experience for everyone in a group, regardless of if they've played 2 hours, 20 hours, or 200 hours. I hate the more modern trend of the full multiplayer experience being locked behind hours of grinding (which creates an obvious opportunity for microtransactions).
That being said, I usually apply this principle more to shooters; for instance, it's one of the reasons L4D is so...
Yep. I wish devs would just take the next step in these situations and remove the progression system altogether.
Another one.
Another one.
Unfortunately I think other games will follow suit, and not just from MS. It won't surprise me at all if Sony tries to pull something similar with a major first party title in the next few years. Some nonsense about "well we want to squeeze as much as possible out of the PS5, so we made the choice to go with 30 fps to expand the size of the world, etc." I hope to be wrong but I think there will be at least one.
I really just think some of these devs are total...
I'd much rather play at 1080p and a high framerate. In fact, I frequently choose to do that on PC, despite having a 4K monitor.
Honestly, I wish they'd just ship every console game now with a dynamic resolution mode locked at 60fps. I don't care that it doesn't look as good for screenshots and presentations; they can use the 30 fps quality mode for that stuff. I just want the option, even if it means dealing with 900p sometimes.
See, I can believe that it's a coordinated campaign. I just don't think it is subsidized. I don't think MS (or any company) needs to pay journalists to do this. I just think there's a level of groupthink, which is probably actively cultivated on a game journalist discord server (or maybe a slack channel or something similar) while also being spread through Twitter, articles, etc.
You honestly have to wonder at this point if a bunch of these writers are on a discord or something and they decided to do a coordinated wave of "30 fps is fine" articles. We know that type of thing has happened before.
I guess the alternative is that they all just have the exact same opinions about everything. Not sure which option is worse, really.
I mean, I really think we need to stop thinking of 60 fps as "performance mode" and start looking at it as the baseline. The problem is that, even now, devs build their games with the standard being "what can we do on console while targeting 30 fps at a high resolution and visual fidelity?" So the 60 fps "performance mode" consists of the game when they've cranked the resolution down and turned off a ton of visual effects. When games are made that way, we...