Also in the future when MS approaches them (having finalized deals on several publishers and therefore far less in need of third-party content) and offers them $200-300k for their next game, they will have to take it, because people have been conditioned that indie games = "Gamepass games," so they aren't going to be able to sell their game on Xbox in any kind of significant numbers.
If you are one of those people who whines that everything is a live service game, everything has micro transactions, and everything is a sequel, but you still won't play Deathloop at $24, you are part of the problem.
Game journalists at the time really fueled this by talking about "the crazy streak of months in a row that 360 outsold PS3," most of the time failing to mention that they were specifically talking about US sales. 360 outsold PS3 significantly in the US, but the rest of the world leaned even more heavily toward PS3. It's also funny that people always talk about how Japan is irrelevant to home console sales, but it is because PS3 outsold 360 in Japan by about 10 million units that...
Lol hopefully it's not going to be cross-gen.
Haha I thought the PS3 and 360 were going to be the last traditional consoles.
@shinoff2183
I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that. Back then if you suggested cross play should be standard, it was all "but Xbox Live is a premium experience, and they can't let people on PS3 compromise their servers" or "you're just jealous that all the players are on Xbox."
Funny how when Xbox doesn't want cross play, the individual consumer is the problem for having been silly enough to buy a playsta...
Lol this is awesome
@Crows90
"they were developing for PC's and PC's were far more capable."
This describes what was happening with Cyberpunk almost exactly. They were focusing on PC, and most critically they were focusing development on specs far in excess of the capabilities of base PS4/Xbox One. But instead of doing the smart Dying Light 1 move and canning the garbage last-gen versions, they just launched them anyway in a broken state and lost a huge chu...
Lol, just like Bethesda had to launch Oblivion on PS2 because of that install base, right?
Yeah I don't think SE would be losing much by not being able to release games on Xbox anymore; but I do wonder if they would be willing to sell to Sony if it meant no more Switch releases. I wonder if they could get a modified version of the deal Bungie got. Like instead of "we can still release our games everywhere," like Bungie can do, SE would have a "we can still put certain games on Switch" deal.
When did Sony buy Activision?
https://gamerant.com/call-o...
Lol, you should be able to figure this out yourself. If Sony remade a popular game just for PC, that would get thrashed online for "abandoning their own console" and "favoring PC" and "becoming another third party." They've even caught flack for some of the recent PC ports that have come out for "the best version of their first party games being on PC." Imagine how much worse that would be if they had remade a 9-year-old game just for PC.
...
Lol by that standard every PC port is a cash grab. There are some people who ONLY play games on PC, or they have PC and only one console. For the PC only people, or PC/Xbox and PC/Switch people, Sony putting their games on PC is the only viable way to reach that audience.
Just a cash grab by trying to market the game to an audience that has never experienced it before.
It's classic PlayStation that Sony invests in Discord but then somehow Xbox gets true Discord integration sooner.
I'm not sure why you'd assume the developer of the game, who is owned by the same company that runs the only digital storefront where the game is available, would not know digital sales numbers.
It's because the people who whine about the terms "live service" and "games as a service" actually want to play live service games and will immediately abandon any online multiplayer that isn't treated as a live service. If they can't grind for new Rick and Morty skins or pink paint for their guns, what's the point?
Yep. I'd always rather have the resolution drop to maintain 60fps rather than have native 4k locked with fps drops.
Yep. People cry when devs use the term "live service" or "game as a service," but as soon as a multiplayer game is maintained just in a status quo and not as a service , the exact same people start whining about how there's "no support" and how there's no point to play since there are no cartoon oven mitts or Rick and Morty skins to buy.
People also focus way too much now on the starting price. Unlike in the PS3/360 era, when a game would release at $60 and then even a year later you were lucky to find a used copy of a game for $45, now games are routinely placed on significant sales even a few months after they launch. Putting aside the fact that $70 now is actually a much lower price than $60 was in 2006 due to inflation, games also drop to $40 and below much sooner.