@CobraKai
See when people call it a "cash grab," I thought that meant because people thought that "Sony is trying to sell us a fully priced remake of a game we already bought twice."
Too me it's far less of a cash grab to remake a game for two entirely new audiences (PC-only players and people watching HBO). I mean I guess they want to make money ultimately but "cash grab" implies that it's in some sort of underhande...
It's nice to see that SOMEONE understands that the show is a big component of the reason they are releasing a new version of this game. That and wanting to have a PC version of this game are the primary reasons this new version exists.
People whining about having already bought the game twice are missing the point that they are specifically NOT the target audience for this remake. Sony saw what happened with Witcher 3 sales when that show came to Netflix, but they also...
"Jan 6 election"
@King_Noctis
And that would be literally, exactly the reason I said "or anything they ever worked on." I knew that, if I just said the rules don't apply to Fromsoft, someone would come along and pretend not to understand with the "but Fromsoft didn't work on the remake." So I included language to specifically preclude that exact response. And then you said it anyway.
Shhhh rules don't apply to the perfect of all perfect devs, Fromsoft, or anything they ever worked on. Just like how people get mad at Horizon and God of War for reusing animations from the prior games, but no one cares about Elden Ring reusing assets from Dark Souls.
They wanted to release it for PC. Obviously they weren't going to port the 2014 PS4 port on PC. But had they just updated the game on PC and not released it on PS5, all of you people whining about the remake on PS5 would be whining about how Sony is ignoring their own console in favor of PC and how Sony was making PC the best place to play one of their biggest games.
Let's hope there aren't fake leaks about the game that cause a bunch of internet warriors to refuse to buy the game. Otherwise it should be good. Too bad it's going to be launching on PS4 though. By the time it comes out there will likely be 30 millionish PS5 owners, and that will include the vast majority of people who buy first-party games.
Yeah I buy almost exclusively digital at this point and I'd be okay with them making collector's editions of games physical discs. The whole point of digital is to have a clean library that I can either have installed or reinstall without sorting through a pile of discs in a box in my closet. Obviously when I take that attitude I do so at the risk that Collector's Editions of games won't be made with me in mind.
That doesn't invalidate my concern. Maybe you don't understand the technology as well as you think.
Hopefully this will not be used as a crutch. What I mean is that I hope devs still make every effort to get games running smoothly without this, so that by turning this on, it locks the game at 60 fps (or 120 where applicable). The worry is that devs know they have this to fall back on and don't put as much effort into polishing because they know they can get an fps boost from this, and then using this just gets games back to where they would have been before.
I feel li...
Unfortunately you can't make a good multiplayer game that isn't a live service anymore. If you just released a standard multiplayer game with 8-10 maps that people are supposed to play because it's fun, and not because of some stupid artificial progression system, people would immediately start whining about the lack of support and content.
Hilariously, you just described Battlefield V. But people didn't play that one, so they tried to copy features from games people were playing instead (Siege, COD:MW, etc), and that's how we ended up with the mess that is 2042.
Yeah I'm baffled at people defending 30 fps on PS5 and Series X for a cross-gen game that was originally designed for Stadia.
Yeah I just assumed that this would be 60 fps.
And this isn't even some game that is pushing other technical boundaries so hard that they had to compromise on framerate. Like I'll never be happy about 30 fps, but if a dev tries to pass a game off at 30 fps at this point, it better have mind-blowing ai, physics, and number of NPCs.
So RT continues to be performance-killing feature that only justifies its existence in about 1 out of every 10 instances it is used?
I mean I get why third parties generally prefer Xbox/PlayStation over Switch. Obviously Switch is underpowered, and there are also certain games that just don't make as much sense in light of the audience.
However, Persona makes way more sense on Switch than on Xbox (not that it couldn't come to both places, but I mean if they were only moving to one). It would run on Switch, and it would probably sell more copies there than the Xbox versions will, even counting Gam...
Hopefully we don't have to have another few years where we pretend to think game streaming is a viable alternative to playing a game that is installed locally. It just isn't, and we all know it.
That Blizzcon where they announced this was 2018. I just assumed this had already launched, failed, and been forgotten.
@King_Noctis
I am not hating on them. I'm just saying that they AND THEIR IP, EVEN WHEN WORKED ON BY ANOTHER STUDIO, get a pass for things that anyone else would get lambasted for. The fact that the Demon's Souls remake got praised where TLOU gets slammed and the fact that they catch no flak for reusing assets while other studios get called lazy are merely a few examples. Another would be the trash performance of Elden Ring-to get a decent framerate on PlayStation, ...